Here’s one argument I’ve heard with regard to Citizens United, most recently on this thread but also from others: Once upon a time, corporations were seen as having to announce a specific set of purposes in their charters — e.g., to make money by selling cheese — and couldn’t go outside those purposes. If only that rule were reinstated, that would be a constitutional way of avoiding Citizens United, because corporate speech supporting or opposing candidates is outside those purposes.
But I don’t think that will work (even setting aside the substantial practical economic problems that it will cause, given that the flexibility to enter into new lines of business is often vital to corporations, especially when they face international competition).
via www.volokh.com
Eugene Volokh explains why it won't work.
