Discussion Replies

Need a reply to the following two discussions, each one should be 1-2 paragraphs long and have an in-text citation (do not need a cover page):

Original question:

1. Saving Disney

After reading the case Saving Disney from your HBP course pack, let?s discuss the independence of the Board of Directors during Eisner?s reign:

1. Do you think ousting Eisner was the right thing to do for the shareholders? What can be learned from the issues raised about the Board of Directors?

2. What do you think about the SaveDisney.com website – was it an effective way to encourage shareholder activism?

3. Do you think this is a good example of the need for a split in the roles of CEO and Chairman of the Board?

Need a Reply to this question:

Students – thus far the consensus has been that ousting Eisner was the right thing to do, so let’s turn the tables. Why was ousting Eisner the wrong thing to do?

Original Discussion Question:

2.Let?s Argue for Argument Sake!

If your last name begins with N ? Z: Present an argument for the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Be sure to support your argument with specific examples.

Reading material: Supreme Court.(2010).Citizens united v.federal election commission. Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.*Please read the majority opinion in case beginning on page 66 if you are assigned to argue for the decision of the court. If you are assigned to argue against the decision ? refer to the dissenting opinions that begin on page 88 or 178.

I need a reply to this student:

Student: Rebecca S.

Hi Everyone

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission triggered a deliberation of corporations’ personal rights under the U.S. Constitution. Corporations can spend unlimited funds advocating the success or defeat of candidates under the protection of the First Amendment.

There are no corporate law theories which can provide an appropriate source from the U.S. Supreme Court can ascribe rights to the corporation. “Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union (Supreme Court, 2010).” “A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. (Supreme Court, 2010).” “Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the ?inherent worth of the speech? and ?its capacity for informing the public,? First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978).

Reference

Epstein, R. A. (2011). Citizens united v. FEC: The constitutional right that big corporations should have but do not want. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (34.2), 639-691.

Supreme Court. (2010). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205….