Politics and the Business Corporation

This essay explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law\u27s long-standing regulation of corporate political speech. The essay has three parts. First, it contends that the conventional justifications for regulating corporate interventions in politics - that corporate donations unnaturally skew the political discourse (bad politics) and that corporate political donations harm shareholders (agency costs) - assume irrational investors and substantial capital market inefficiency. Drawing on public choice theory, the essay also explores the aim of retarding rent-seeking as an alternative justification for regulating corporate interventions in politics. Second, the essay reexamines the history of the regulation of corporate political speech and suggests a political economy analysis whereby corporations favored limitations on corporate donations in order to obtain protection from rent extraction by politicians. Finally, the essay explores the implications of this analysis for the modern regulation of corporate political donations

Corporate Political Speech, Political Extortion, and the Competition for Corporate Charters

This article explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law\u27s long-standing discrimination against corporate political speech. This Article also explores the relevance of state law regulation of corporate political speech to the competition between the states for corporate charters. In the process, implications for the current political debate over soft money and the current academic debates over enacting an optional federal corporate takeover law regime and creating a securities law regulatory competition are noted. The underlying aim of this Article is to bring to bear on the relevant policy debates a shift in focus from the shareholder/manager agency relationship to the agency relationship between lawmakers and society. The Article draws on the contractarian view of the firm, the economic theory of regulation, and the study of public choice

Corporate Political Speech, Political Extortion, and the Competition for Corporate Charters

This article explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law\u27s long-standing discrimination against corporate political speech. This Article also explores the relevance of state law regulation of corporate political speech to the competition between the states for corporate charters. In the process, implications for the current political debate over soft money and the current academic debates over enacting an optional federal corporate takeover law regime and creating a securities law regulatory competition are noted. The underlying aim of this Article is to bring to bear on the relevant policy debates a shift in focus from the shareholder/manager agency relationship to the agency relationship between lawmakers and society. The Article draws on the contractarian view of the firm, the economic theory of regulation, and the study of public choice

Corporate Political Speech, Political Extortion, and the Competition for Corporate Charters

This Article explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law\u27s longstanding discrimination against corporate political speech. This Article also explores the relevance of state law regulation of corporate political speech to the competition between the states for corporate charters. The underlying aim of this Article is to bring to bear on the relevant policy debates a shift in focus from the shareholder/manager agency relationship to the agency relationship between lawmakers and society. The Article draws on the contractarian view of the firm, the economic theory of regulation, and the study of public choice

The Lurking Rule Against Accumulations of Income

The Rule Against Perpetuities is dying an ignoble death. To attract trust business and the lawyers\u27 fees and trustees\u27 commissions that come with it, twenty states have abolished the Rule as applied to interests in trust. But the Rule Against Perpetuities is not the only rule of property law that bears on trust duration. Another is the rule against accumulations of income, which limits the timeframe during which a settlor may direct the trustee to accumulate and retain income in trust. For 200 years, the rule against accumulations of income has lurked in the shadow of its older and more distinguished cousin, the Rule Against Perpetuities. But with the race to abolish the Rule Against Perpetuities, the rule against accumulations of income may have newfound relevance. Perpetual trusts are more likely than ordinary trusts to involve accumulations of income in trust. Accordingly, the task for this short essay is to examine the lurking rule against accumulations of income and its potential impact on the $100 billion perpetual trust industry

Trust as "Uncorporation": A Research Agenda

Trust has long been a competitor of corporation as a form of business organization. Though corporation today dominates trust for operating enterprises, trust dominates corporation in certain specialized niches. The market value of these niches measures in the trillions of dollars. Yet the modern business trust has only recently begun to be subjected to scholarly inquiry. Accordingly, this essay outlines a research agenda for the study of the trust in particular, the modern statutory business trust— as a form of business organization. Put into the parlance of the conference on which this symposium issue is based, this essay is a call for re-search on the business trust as “uncorporation.

Politics and the Business Corporation

This essay explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law\u27s long-standing regulation of corporate political speech. The essay has three parts. First, it contends that the conventional justifications for regulating corporate interventions in politics -- that corporate donations unnaturally skew the political discourse (bad politics) and that corporate political donations harm shareholders (agency costs) -- assume irrational investors and substantial capital market inefficiency. Drawing on public choice theory, the essay also explores the aim of retarding rent-seeking as an alternative justification for regulating corporate interventions in politics. Second, the essay reexamines the history of the regulation of corporate political speech and suggests a political economy analysis whereby corporations favored limitations on corporate donations in order to obtain protection from rent extraction by politicians. Finally, the essay explores the implications of this analysis for the modern regulation of corporate political donations