The dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United questioned who is speaking when corporations endorse or attack political candidates. This portion of the dissent made the following points: O "It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque to management." O "Perhaps the officers or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal ends." O Take away the ability to use general treasury funds for some of those ads, and no one's autonomy, dignity, or political equality has been impinged upon in the least" All of these

The dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United questioned who is speaking when corporations endorse or attack political candidates. This portion of the dissent made the following points: O "It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque to management." O "Perhaps the officers or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal ends." O Take away the ability to use general treasury funds for some of those ads, and no one's autonomy, dignity, or political equality has been impinged upon in the least" All of these