DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

There are what are known as landmark court rulings in modern legal systems. These rulings establish precedents that define a crucial new legal idea or principle or otherwise have a significant impact on the interpretation of current law. Landmark judgements have varying effects on the law. It may accomplish this by distinguishing a new principle that improves on a former principle, therefore diverging from earlier practice without violating the concept of stare decisis. It can also establish a quantitative standard that judges might use in future judgements. When it comes to a specific provision of the written constitution, only one court may be formed.  It thus follows that until further rulings are made, the said ruling remains the leading case. We will review a particular court case and assess its impact on the constitution. The court case under consideration will be First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). In essence, court rulings have the ability to impact on the development of American constitutional law by instituting various changes in either interpretation or wording.

Background: Constitutional principle under consideration

The principle under consideration in the case falls under the First Amendment rights, the freedom to spend money in elections. The notion that money is a form of speech was not an American legislation but rather a decision by seven Supreme Court justices. This decision was made during the Buckley v. Valeo of 1976. Following the Watergate scandal, Congress tried to flush out corruption during political campaigns by putting a cap on financial contributions to aspirants. Among others, the law limited the sum of cash that a person could give to a campaign and necessitated that donations beyond a specific threshold be stated. In 1971 the Federal Election Commission was established to implement the provision. The arising question here is did these bounds on electoral spendingby the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 go against the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and association clauses?

In the complex case, the Court made two significant rulings. The first was that prohibitions on individual donations to political campaigns and aspirants didn’t go against the First Amendment because the prohibitions of the FECA acted to augment the uprightness of America’s democracy by shielding against unethical actions. Secondly, the Court ruled that the government prohibition of independent spending in campaigns, the restriction of independent expenses in campaign, caps on expenditure by aspirants from their personal sources and the restrictions on the entire campaign expenditures did go against the First Amendment. Because these stipulations do not essentially heighten the probability of fraud that single donations to aspirants do, the Court discovered capping them was not as great to government interest as to necessitate a curbing on association and free speech. According to the ruling:

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.

Massachusetts Campaign financing law

Prior to the First Bank of Boston v. Bellotti case, Massachusetts laws stipulated that a political aspirant or committee was not allowed to receive or solicit any check that reflected the name of a commercial enterprise, partnership, professional enterprise, a limited liability company or partnership with the exception of an autonomous expenditure political action committee (PAC) or a ballot question committee. Further, the stipulations prohibited donations to aspirants or committees from professional or commercial enterprises, partnerships, limited liability partnerships or companies formed under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth or running its operations under the same; with the exception of ballot question committees and independent expenditure PACs. However, in the case accounts are formed by a partnership to hold the equity interest of each of the partners, the accounts may be used by the partners to contribute individually. Additionally, the state of Massachusetts was in the process of proposing a constitutional amendment to be decided in a referendum. With regards to individuals, they were only allowed to make donations of up to $1000 to a candidate and their committee in a calendar year.

Court case: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

In this case, The First National Bank of Boston and other business corporations disagreed with a proposed referendum that would reform Massachusetts’ constitution to allow income tax. When they stated their plan to use company funds to contest the proposed tax, the state attorney-general said he would take them to court should they follow through with their intention. They were not permitted to spend any money in the course of political campaign, however, because that would have been against a state law barring commercial enterprises from expenditures that would impact the vote on any matter rather than that which affect the enterprise directly. In the case, First National Bank took Massachusetts attorney general, Francis Bellotti, to court so as to invalidate the Massachusetts law. At Massachusetts’ Supreme Court, the firms posited that through the Fourteenth amendment, they had the same speech rights as that which was granted to natural persons in the First Amendment. The Massachusetts court rejected this argument. The case was escalated to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court voted to proclaim the law to be against the constitution. According to Justice Powell’s majority verdict, enterprises have the power to spend money with the aim of swaying referenda and allied polls. In his ruling, he stated that the Massachusetts criminal edict barring corporate expenditure for swaying voters’ choices impinged on the corporation’s safeguarded speech in a way that was unwarranted by the state’s vested interest.

Court case analysis

First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti is the first United States constitutional law case that designated free speech right of firms by means of expenditure. According to the United States Supreme Court ruling, firms have the right influence the electoral process through the First Amendment. This ruling diverged from a Massachusetts law that barred corporate contributions in ballots unless the outcome directly impacted on the corporation’s interests. Having been banned from playing a part in the Massachusetts referendum on tax policy, First National Bank of Boston and a number of corporations sued the attorney general of the state. The case went on to the United States Supreme Court which consequently ruled contrary to the Massachusetts law. Because of the decision, states had no power to enforce particular guidelines with regards to contributions from corporations with regards to electoral processes. Although the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti verdict did not directly impact on the federal law, it was the basis on which decisions regarding other cases such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission were made.

The first consideration of the United States Supreme Court was if the case was to be considered moot. The constitutional amendment that the petitioners were against has been overthrown by the time that the case was brought before the Supreme Court. To make the decision whether the case was moot or not, the court cited the Weinstein v. Bradford case. According to the court, the period between the proposal of the Massachusetts amendment and its referendum was too brief for the occurrence of a comprehensive judicial appraisal and that the Court had discovered that there existed a realistic prospect that the petitioners would be unfavorably impacted by the edict. Afterwards the Supreme Court stipulated that the Massachusetts edict under consideration went against the corporate speech rights as enshrined in the first in the First Amendment. According to the majority, “commercial speech is accorded some constitutional protection not so much because it pertains to the seller’s business as because it furthers the societal interest in the ‘free flow of commercial information’ ”. According to the Supreme Court, the intrinsic value of speech as concerns its capability to inform the public is not dependent on the distinctiveness of its basis be it an individual, union, association or a corporation. When coming up with its verdict, the Court vetoed the contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable to firms. This was an overruling of the Pierce v. Society of Sisters which indicated that corporations could not be assigned the guaranteed liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment with the Supreme Court declaring the decisions to be invalid to its decisions. Instead, the Supreme Court maintained that the Due Process Clause First Amendment liberties, including the freedom of speech.

According to the majority, the position that the First Amendment rights of corporation originate only from the corporations’ property and business interests was not constitutional. Additionally, the Supreme Court proclaimed that the Court’s verdicts on corporations with entertainment and communication operations are not only grounded on the role of the First Amendment in nurturing personal self-expression, but also on its part in allowing the public to discuss, debate and disseminate ideas and information. The Supreme Court further alluded to Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council where the Court decided that in a commercial advertisement the advertiser’s interest is limited to the economic aspect and therefore it doesn’t exempt the advertiser from the safeguards of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In the ruling both the individual consumer and the society at large may possess a considerable interest in free distribution of information. The Supreme Court stated that there was no proof that the corporations were dispossessed of their speech safeguards in the event that the speech didn’t directly affect the corporation’s business. Consequently the provision violated of the freedom of expression of the corporation.

In its verdict, the Court also discounted the assertion that the edict was compelled by lofty government interests. The State of Massachusetts had contended that the provision was necessitated by two motives, that the State had a significant interest in upholding the part of individuals in the firms and electoral process would have an adverse impact on this; and that it safeguarded investors of the firms whose opinions might be divergent from those of the managers. The majority averred that none of these defenses was clear in the edict. Moreover, the verdict discovered that there was unsatisfactory proof to ascertain significant state interest test. Pertaining the latter assertion, the Court maintained that the edict both underestimated and overestimated the shareholders interest.

Another argument for the state of Massachusetts was that although its statute forbid the spending of corporate funds in any activities around any referendum, it did not forbid the board of directors of a firm from framing and expressing to the public the views of the corporation although the subject under consideration is not directly linked to the business of the firm. These opinions could be revealed at the personal liability of the stakeholders, directors, officers or any other person with an interest in disseminating corporate perspectives on matters extraneous to its business.

Massachusetts law amendments

In the wake of the First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti case, the Massachusetts law underwent some amendments. Corporations, associations, groups, labor union or any other party paying for electioneering communication transmitted via paid television, internet and radio shall include a statement divulging their identity. If the independent spending or electioneering communication is a television or radio advertisement, the advertisement ought to include a declaration by the person paying for the advertisement where he acknowledges that the person funded the message and the particular location from whence the individual hails. If the television or the television advertisement is funded by a firm, association, labor union or group and a stipulated statement shall be issued by the chief executive officer of the firm, principal officer or chairman of the association or group or the business manager or executive of the labor union. Moreover, an electioneering communication or independent expenditure by an individual group, firm, labor union, association or any other entity which is disseminated via paid print advertising, television or internet advertising appearing bigger than 15 square inches or through billboards or direct mail shall comprise a written statement at the base of the advertisement or direct mailing containing the text “Top contributors” and a written statement listing five people or parties, or if less than five, all the persons and entities that gave the most donations notwithstanding the purposes of the contributions. If the said contribution is not received by the party making an electioneering communication or independent expenditure, the communication or advertisement may omit the statement. Those found in violation of this section face a punishment of not more than a year’s imprisonment, a fine of not more than $10000 or both.

Conclusion

Court decisions on particular cases have the ability to impact on the development of American constitutional law. This impact may come in the way of interpretation of the said law or actual amendment to the law. The First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti case brought to the fore a very significant question which was if, and to what extent corporations are allowed the first amendment rights and whether these rights can be equated to those of a natural individual. The particular freedom in contestation in this case was the freedom of expression. Another salient question thus arises, can corporations use their money as a means of expression of their will in elections regardless of whether the ballot affects their business or not? Having been turned down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, The First National Bank of Boston proceeded to the United States Supreme Court where it sought to argue that the rights due to natural persons under the First and Fourteenth Amendments could also be extended to corporations, in particular the freedom of expression, which the corporations can exercise by expenditures to influence voters’ opinions. The United States granted them the decision that declared that the corporations qualified for the First Amendment rights and therefore could participate in the electioneering and related processes through spending money in various legal ways, including the dissemination of information. This decision was a landmark decision, a first of its kind and it served as a reference to a number of cases of the same nature that followed. The case further set precedent to the amendment of Massachusetts state law to allow corporations to participate in the electioneering process albeit with some restrictions.

















Bibliography

Harris, Richard A, and Daniel J Tichenor. 2010. A History of the US Political System: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions. Santa Barbara: ABD-CLIO.

Pomeranz, Jennifer L. 2016. Food Law for Public Health. New York: Oxford Presss.

Schiller, Herbert I. 1989. Culture, Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression . New York: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, Steffen W, Mack C Shelley, and Barbara A Bardes. 2009. American Government & Politics Today. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Schultz, David, and John R Vile. 2005. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. New York: Routledge.