The example given of David Siegel’s e-mail is an extraordinary one. First, I believe Mr. Siegel has every right to preach as he wills, to express his political views as he sees fit in his company, and to elaborately describe the political and economic situation related to him and his employees. Second, the “Citizens United” ruling basically gave corporations no limitations in the political sense. The advantages of this ruling are: A) Business owners can express their political beliefs and stances to the corporation, b) this doesn’t create deceptive ways of having to express political beliefs, and c) corporations aren’t limited in their freedom of expression and speech; they can run their corporation as they see fit. The disadvantages of the ruling are: a) creating an intimidating workplace environment for employees, b) indirectly threatening to lay off employees if the political victory goes to the opposing campaign (whether local, state, or federal), and c) causing employees to change their views in order to keep their job at that particular company.

The e-mail from David Siegel creates a frightening workplace environment to employees who oppose his views. If I worked for Mr. Siegel, I would not want to express that I do not agree with his views, despite not fearing termination (as that would be unlawful). However, as an employee, I would understand that Mr. Siegel has the right to express his views as a successful business owner, and likewise, I have the right to vote as I wish. If I had my own corporation, I would express my views as well. I wouldn’t expect any employee to fear working for the corporation, nor would I expect employees to quit due to my political expressions. Ultimately, whether Mr. Siegel emailed his employees or not, their work efficiency should not be affected. The only difference is that employees who were originally undecided might