The Constitution is the framework for the Government of the United States that protects and guarantees the basic rights of the people. It functions as guidance when new situations arise such as a woman asserting her constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as a substantive due process (Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and corporations exercising their right to freedom of speech and equal treatment under the law. I believe that the recent US Supreme Court 5 to 4 ruling allowing corporations to support political ads and contribute money to the election campaigns of political candidates, citing first amendment rights under the freedom of speech provision, is representative of the United States Constitution and its intent (Liptak, 2010).
First of all, the discussed decision is reflective of the controversy also observed in other court ruling decisions based on the case law principles. For instance, in the United States v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) case, the court admitted the power of law over the Presidential power. The case Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975) reflects the eternal right of a person for hearing if he/she is suspended from the study for more than a trivial period. University of California Regents v Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978) is a landmark of the educational affirmative action that on the one hand admitted the right of every person for education but on the other hand validated the universities to admit or reject students based on race. Plyer v Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982) and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) cases also illustrate how the court rules that education is an eternal right of every person irrespective of his/her background.
Thus, the Supreme Court decision is also a controversial one as it defends the Constitutional rights of people but has a potential for legislative violations and bribery. On the one hand, the First Amendment to the Constitution rules that Congress should not make laws “abridging the freedom of speech” (Volokh, 2004). In the 1889 case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith 129 U.S. 26, the court acknowledged corporations as a person, which means that the Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision is the restoration of the constitutional norm of freedom of speech (Harrington & Carter, 2009, p. 198).
Accordingly, the discussed decision has numerous positive implications. First, the Supreme Court proves the importance of law and human freedoms for U.S. society. Second, corporations get the right to lawful expression of their political preferences. Third, the society gets another proof of democracy ruling the U.S. laws.
On the other hand, the decision can be considered inappropriate. Although the constitutional intent is the protection of human rights, it is not stated explicitly in the First Amendment that Congress should not make laws “abridging the freedom of speech” of persons. Thus, even if corporations are acknowledged as persons, this fact does not prove their right for supporting political campaigns financially (Rosenbloom, 2003, p. 173).
Moreover, such a decision might have negative implications for society. First, given the unlimited right for financial support of political ads, corporations might get beyond the Governmental control, and the election process will become a financial rather than a political contest. Second, such a decision might cause bribery at the highest levels of legislative power. Third, candidates might become elected not according to their ideas but according to the money they can spend on campaigns.
In any case, if a state agency like the Department of State is charged with implementing the discussed Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision, it should first deliver this decision to all its state and federal branches to provide the country-wide application of the decision. Second, the Department of State should define the terms used in the decision by, for instance, defining a person as every private or legal entity that has duties and rights, pays taxes, and participates in social life. These steps will allow avoiding ambiguity in terms and ensuring that courts and legislative bodies at all levels implement the Supreme Court decision. So, the controversy that surrounds this Supreme Court decision is reflective of past contradictions in case rulings.
References
Harrington, C. & Carter, L. (2009). Administrative Law and Politics: Cases & Comments. (4th Ed.) Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Liptak, A. (2010). Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit. The New York Times, p. A3.
Rosenbloom, D. (2003). Administrative Law for Public Managers. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Supreme Court of the United States. (2010). Citizens United v. Federal election commission. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Vicini, J. (2010). Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash. Thomson Reuters.
Volokh, E. (2004). First Myths: Some on the right age getting the First Amendment wrong. The National Review.