Podcast Summary:

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts
Episode: Why Are Republicans Upset About Corporate Free Speech All of a Sudden?
Date: April 10, 2021
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Chara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the complexity and recent contradictions surrounding corporate political speech in America—particularly spotlighting Republican backlash to corporations denouncing Georgia’s new restrictive voting laws. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Chara Torres-Spelliscy to discuss the historical roots of voter suppression in Georgia, the role of corporations in political funding, the limits and paradoxes of corporate activism, and the evolving debate over corporate free speech—culminating in Sen. Mitch McConnell’s sudden call for corporations to remain silent on voting rights.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Historical Context: Voter Suppression in Georgia

• Chara Torres-Spelliscy provides a historical perspective on Georgia's entrenched legacy of disenfranchising Black voters, stretching back to before the 15th Amendment.
  • Georgia expelled 33 elected Black legislators after the Civil War—a decision only reversed by federal intervention ([03:53]).
  • “We have seen people completely disenfranchised for decades in this very state... We don’t want to relive that again.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 05:52)

2. Corporate Influence on Politics

• Discussion of the complex ways corporations participate in American politics:
  • Direct giving (state vs. federal rules);
  • Corporate PACs:
    • Funded by corporate employees, officers, etc.
  • Super PACs (post-Citizens United):
    • Allow unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (via 2010’s SpeechNOW case) ([09:24]).
• In Georgia, companies like Coca-Cola and Delta were targeted for boycott due to their direct financial support for politicians behind restrictive voting laws ([12:34]).
  • “They had a role in facilitating the election of these particular politicians... That opens them up to criticism and the threat of boycotts.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 11:52)

3. Corporate Hypocrisy and the Limits of “Virtue”

• Companies often donate to both parties equally, aiming to “bet on red and blue at the same time”—which Torres-Spelliscy argues is worse because it allows corporations to claim innocence while enabling problematic politicians ([13:37]).
  • “If we were playing roulette, it's as if corporate spenders are betting on red and black at the same time, but in our political system they're betting on red and blue. And for me, that is worse.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 13:38)

4. The Corporate Boycott Conundrum

• Debate over whether corporate boycotts help or harm marginalized communities.
  • Voices like Stacey Abrams argue that boycotts often hurt the poorest citizens, rather than the companies themselves ([21:55]).
  • Torres-Spelliscy highlights that while boycotts are a classic and constitutionally protected form of protest—sometimes they can force corporate action (e.g., Coca-Cola dropping ALEC under threat in the 2000s) ([23:41] and [26:30]).

5. The Distinctiveness of Modern Activism

• Modern activists increasingly pressure corporations directly, rather than solely organizing grassroots boycotts—a shift toward “kneecapping with public opinion” rather than traditional on-the-ground organizing ([28:33]).

6. Citizen United’s Legacy and Dark Money Problems

• Citizens United (2010) fundamentally reshaped the campaign landscape—enabling unlimited, often undisclosed “dark money” political spending by corporations.
  • “This tiny group of people post-Citizens United... wield more power than at any time since Watergate.”
    (Dahlia Lithwick referencing a Brennan Center report, 34:07)
• Large donors have used this post-CU leverage as a “donor strike” (threatening to withhold money if the GOP doesn’t achieve preferred policies, such as the 2017 tax cuts) ([34:17]).

7. Corporations as Political Moderators (Sometimes)

• Corporate America’s consumer base can pressure them to check political extremism—e.g., widespread corporate rejection of Trump after racist remarks and the events at Charlottesville ([41:53]).
  • “We have a customer base that we care about more than we care about you, and we are not going to be associated with this type of rank racism.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 42:19)

8. Mitch McConnell’s Sudden Change of Tune

• McConnell's recent statements, urging companies to stop expressing political opinions but ‘keep writing checks,’ directly contradict decades fighting for corporate speech under Citizens United ([46:21]).
  • “He has an enormous amount of chutzpah to claim that corporations should just shut up when he has spent so much of his career making sure they have an outsized voice in our politics.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 48:22)
  • McConnell’s flip-flop on disclosure: “Almost as soon as this [Citizens United] opinion comes out, Mitch McConnell gets on the floor of the Senate and starts deriding disclosure of money in politics... He ever since has been a champion of dark money.”
    (Chara Torres-Spelliscy, 51:05)

9. Reforms and Final Recommendations

• Torres-Spelliscy advocates for:
  • Better disclosure laws about political spending,
  • Shareholder voting on corporate political budgets (as practiced in the UK)
  • Passing S1 (For The People Act) to strengthen American democracy ([53:32]).

Memorable Quotes

• “If we were playing roulette... corporate spenders are betting on red and blue at the same time. And for me, that is worse.”
  — Chara Torres-Spelliscy ([13:38])

• “We've had these various tests of our legal system and our expectations and norms in our democracy and sort of over the past four years, most of those... have been just utter failures.”
  — Chara Torres-Spelliscy ([19:45])

• “You have to get the money from somewhere. And this is one of the reasons why I support public financing. I think there should be a alternative to having our representatives in Congress dial for dollars 30 hours a week.”
  — Chara Torres-Spelliscy ([14:44])

• “He has an enormous amount of chutzpah to claim that corporations should just shut up when he has spent so much of his career making sure that they have an outsized voice in our politics.”
  — Chara Torres-Spelliscy ([48:22])

Important Timestamps

• 03:53 – Torres-Spelliscy on Georgia’s post-Civil War voter suppression history
• 09:24 – Overview of three main sources of corporate money in politics
• 13:38 – Analogy of corporate donors “betting on red and blue”
• 19:45 – Cynicism towards accountability (post-January 6, emoluments, etc.)
• 23:41 – Discussion of boycott efficacy and constitutional protections
• 41:53 – Corporations as inconsistent but occasionally moral actors
• 48:22 – Analysis of Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy
• 53:32 – Plea to support the For the People Act (S1)

Conclusion and Call to Action

The episode concludes with Torres-Spelliscy urging listeners to contact their senators and support S1, the Senate version of the For the People Act, in order to address burgeoning issues around money in politics and protect democracy. The dialogue throughout is candid, occasionally darkly humorous, and marked by a sense of urgency about accountability and reform.

Listen to the full episode for an in-depth journey through the intersections of law, money, and the modern American struggle over voting rights and corporate influence.