Liberal critics of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case seem to have two overused talking points: that the ruling will allow foreign corporations to influence American elections, and that shareholders of corporations must be “protected” from political expenditures they don’t agree with.

The foreign-corporation shibboleth is completely false (as I explain here): Foreign nationals (including corporations) are banned from participating in American elections, either directly through contributions or indirectly through independent expenditures.

The push for shareholder “rights” is also quite telling. The various proposals that are being made are epitomized by the predictably hyperbolic views of the Brennan Center, which is recommending that federal law be changed to require that corporations obtain the consent of shareholders before making political expenditures, and that corporate directors be held personally liable for violating this requirement. Supposedly this “will empower shareholders to affect how their money is spent. It also may preserve more corporate assets by limiting the spending of corporate money on political expenditures.”

Of course, shareholders already have the ability to influence the behavior of the corporations in which they own shares, through shareholder votes. Moreover, shareholders have the ability to vote with their feet by selling their stock and moving on to another company if they get upset over what their corporations are doing.

What is very revealing about these proposals and all of the supposedly deep concern over shareholder rights is that there is not the same distress over members of unions who face a much more difficult dilemma than shareholders. In a 40-page Brennan Center report on the need to protect shareholders from such political spending, there is not a single mention of any need to protect union members. There is no concern whatsoever over empowering union members “to affect how their money is spent.”

Despite the tens of millions of dollars individual unions have spent in recent years on political activities, there is also apparently no concern over preserving union “assets by limiting the spending of [union] money on political expenditures.” Unlike shareholders, who can walk out on any company they don’t like, many union members cannot simply cancel their union membership. Fewer than half of all states have right-to-work laws (which prevent workers from being forced to join a union). Employees in some national industries, such as the airline and railway industries, are also not protected by right-to-work laws.

Union members do have certain rights under the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers v. Beck not to be forced to pay the portion of their union dues that will used for political purposes; but this is a right that falls far short of what is being sought for shareholders. For example, there is no secret ballot: Union members must publicly declare to the union leadership that they want to exercise their Beck rights. It is also an all-or-nothing proposal: Union members cannot object on a case-by-case basis to the specific political expenditures that the union leadership wants to make for particular candidates or issues. Many unions also deliberately make it very difficult for members to exercise these rights, working actively to frustrate and delay compliance.

It is also worth noting that many companies make charitable contributions. In fact, corporate giants such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup are infamous for donating millions of dollars to ACORN, an organization whose corruption is now legendary. Funny: None of the individuals or organizations criticizing the Citizens United decision seem to be concerned about making sure that shareholders have to give their permission before these types of charitable donations are made. Given this obvious lack of consistency, the shareholder proposal seems designed to advance partisan politics, not the rights of shareholders.