There is no secret that one of my favorite blogs to follow is Tom Kane's Legal Marketing Blog. His ideas and theories are concise, insightful and relevant.
One thing that he makes clear, as with all great precedent changing court decisions, those "activist judges" tend to create new and dynamic niche practice areas for lawyers.
Tom Kane suggests that in light of United States Supreme Court's decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, opening the flood gates of corporation and union spending in politics, a new practice niche might be developing. After all, just because big corporations and big unions can spend at their whim on independent political expenditures, does not mean that the shareholders and union membership is going to approve of the message or the spending. The Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, but the truth of the matter is that the conglomeration of people in Big Corp and Big Labor might feel disfavored on the subjects and viewpoints promoted by their corporations and unions.
First, as we already know, the strange peccadillos of corporate and union executives are not always, if not often, in the best interest of the organizations they lead, much less represent the views of shareholders and union members. If I join a political group and donate money, I pretty much know what I am getting into. If I do not like it I can leave because the basis of my involvement is strictly political. I expect nothing else from the organization. But, if I am an investor in a corporation that makes widgets, that is my focus -- to increase my wealth through widgets, and not to see the earnings of the corporation invest in some campaign to keep John Edward's mistress and love child a secret. If I am against abortion and the pro-abortion candidate, why in the name of God would I wish to see the computer software company in which I am invested promote a pro-choice agenda.
Second, this ruling is going to lead to problems for the opposite reason. Politicians and political organizations are a very needy people. Strangely enough they tend to be both ideological and Machiavellian. They know how to exert pressure on corporations and unions to get money the corporation or union might not otherwise want to pay. We saw this in regard to the Texas Indiana casino scandal and the Jack Abramoff scandal. Business organizations being terrorized into venturing into huge political spending to support people and issues in which there was no interest for fear that legislators and lobbyist would sabotage the corporation's or union's other legitimate interest. It is, in short, protection money.
And, of course, out of this will come regulation -- with penalties -- for things like strict liability disclosures of money spent and the like. As we have seen with issues like abortions, bankruptcy and attorney advertising, where the government cannot outlaw it or prohibit it, it can, and it will, strictly regulate it. It is just a matter of time.
This undoubtedly will result in money for lawyers to both navigate and defend these conglomerations of interest through the traps that await them, protect the interest of the shareholders and union members that disagree and, of course, manage the fall out that follows all of this.
Remember, the early bird catches the worm. Undoubtedly, now is a good time to develop yourself as the expert in this area.
Comments