Wednesday, November 14, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Nov. 14, 2018)

November 14, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 11, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Nov. 11, 2018)

November 11, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Nov. 7, 2018)

November 7, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 4, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Nov. 4, 2018)

November 4, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Oct. 31, 2018)

October 31, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 28, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Oct. 28, 2018)

October 28, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Oct. 24, 2018)

October 24, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 21, 2018

Quotes from a Draft: The Search for an Egalitarian First Amendment

Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen have posted a draft of their paper The Search for an Egalitarian First Amendment on SSRN (available here).  In skimming the paper, I came across a number of quotes, including a couple of citations, I thought readers of this blog might find of interest. So, here they are, in no particular order:

-- One does not need to read Piketty ... to guess that equating corporations’ rights to spend money, sell data, and trim benefits with citizens’ First Amendment rights might prove controversial in a world of bank bailouts and mortgage foreclosures.

-- the question whether the Free Speech Clause permits a legislature to limit the election-related spending of corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals in the service of antiplutocratic goals. To help answer this question in the face of mixed precedent and negligible Founding-era evidence, the Justices have adverted to each of the three major normative theories of the First Amendment [pursuit of truth, the promotion of individual autonomy, and the facilitation of democratic self-government].

-- Both the majority and the dissent in Citizens United thus plausibly invoked each and every one of the three major First Amendment theories, as well as the value of equality itself, in support of their dueling positions. 

-- For a decade now, the “anxiety that the ‘Great Recession’ . . . defines a new economic normal,” in which the wealthiest
individuals take an ever larger piece of an ever shrinking pie, has shaped American public culture.

-- “Pikettymania” revolved around the stark neo-Marxist claim that “capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.”

-- it is not just the current composition of the Supreme Court or its most controversial free speech decisions that account for the rise of First Amendment Lochnerism—a First Amendment jurisprudence that disables redistributive regulation and exacerbates socioeconomic inequality

-- The move from speaker to system is the most powerful move in the contemporary grammar of egalitarian First Amendment argument; its underlying account of free speech does not merely complicate or chisel away at the deregulatory Lochnerian paradigm but supplies a comprehensive alternative.

-- a First Amendment-industrial complex. Mapping the contours of this complex is well beyond the scope of this Essay. The basic point, for present purposes, is that arguments for a deregulatory First Amendment are now promoted not only
(or even primarily) by for-profit companies seeking to minimize their own labor costs or regulatory burdens, but also by a growing set of nominally depoliticized nonprofits with varying degrees of connection to the business community

-- An additional feature of informational capitalism extends the potential reach of First Amendment Lochnerism: the dominant role played by private owners of the platforms through which information circulates online and within which ever more data is commodified and mined for economic value. Even though they control the infrastructure of digital communication and function as the “new governors” of the digital public sphere, companies like Facebook and Google are generally assumed to not be bound by the First Amendment because they are not state actors. Instead of empowering users to challenge their policies, the First Amendment empowers the companies themselves to challenge statutes and regulations intended to promote antidiscrimination norms or users’ speech and privacy, among other values. First Amendment law not only fails to check the internet’s new governors and the inequalities that pervade their platforms, but also stands in the way of legislative and administrative correctives.

-- The neoliberal preference is not necessarily for “free markets” as such, but for a regulatory environment that prioritizes “familiar protections of property and contract” along with “a favorable return on investment and managerial authority.” In our digital age, the facilitation of these preferences has fallen to the “information state,” the set of national (or international) bureaucracies that oversee the operations of informational capitalism. Within these bureaucracies, “mandates or bans on conduct”—such as traditional labor laws, wage and price controls, or licensing regimes—are apt to be rejected as overly market-disruptive and replaced whenever possible with “‘lighter-touch’ forms of governance . . . such as disclosure requirements” and other regulatory techniques that further the production and circulation of commercially salient information.

-- Cases decided by the Roberts Court, the Rehnquist Court, the Burger Court, and even the Stone Court have been singled out as the inflection point when First Amendment doctrine took its inegalitarian turn.

-- For an ideologically diverse range of scholars, policymakers, and activists, growing inequality names both the deep cause and the dangerous effect of a set of overlapping conflicts—economic, racial, cultural, constitutional—that threaten the stability of contemporary U.S. society.

-- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 424–25 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”).

-- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 441 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that “the Constitution does, in fact, permit numerous ‘restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many’” (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 402 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring)))

October 21, 2018 in Constitutional Law, Corporate Governance, Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

John Marshall Law School in Chicago seeks visiting faculty members for Spring 2019

The following comes to us from  John Marshall Law School Associate Dean David Sorkin. 

Spring 2019 Full-Time Faculty Podium Visitors

The John Marshall Law School in Chicago seeks one or two full-time visiting faculty members for the Spring 2019 semester. We need coverage in the areas of Corporations, Civil Procedure (evening course), Secured Transactions, and Estates & Trusts. The appointment is for one semester, but we will be seeking visitors for the 2019–2020 academic year in these areas plus some combination of Evidence, Criminal Law, and Property.

Candidates should have taught full-time at an ABA-approved law school.

To Apply:

Submit a current CV, cover letter, and three professional references to Associate Dean David Sorkin at 7sorkin@jmls.edu. The review will begin immediately and continue on a rolling basis until one or both positions are filled. We may request a Skype or in-person interview and submission of prior teaching evaluations.

The John Marshall Law School, finding any invidious discrimination inconsistent with the mission of free academic inquiry, does not discriminate in admission, services, or employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, veteran status, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic characteristics, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law.

October 17, 2018 in Jobs, Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 14, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Oct. 14, 2018)

October 14, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Oct. 10, 2018)

October 10, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 7, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Oct. 7, 2018)

October 7, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Oct. 3, 2018)

October 3, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 30, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Sep. 30, 2018)

September 30, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Sep. 26, 2018)

September 26, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 23, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Sep. 23, 2018)

September 23, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Sep. 19, 2018)

September 19, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 16, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Sep. 16, 2018)

September 16, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Midweek Roundup (Sep. 12, 2018)

September 12, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 9, 2018

ICYMI: #corpgov Weekend Roundup (Sep. 9, 2018)

It was a busy second half of the week. More after the break:

Continue reading

September 9, 2018 in Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (0)