President Obama has criticized the recent Supreme Court’s ruling that allow corporations and unions to spend virtually unlimited amount of money to campaign for and against elected officials. The Supreme Court’s rational for the ruling was that the first amendment protects the right of free speech, and corporations and unions also have this constitutional right.

This was not a decisive decision, however, as the court was bitterly divided five to four. President Obama has condemned the decision, while Republicans have praised it.

Politicians have their own agenda for commenting on this issue, but as a citizen I also have a vested interest on the court’s decision. At the consequential level, the court has opened up a situation, where billions will now be spent in electing and defeating politicians. I do not have a problem of the amount of money that is spent on campaigns, but I do have a problem of the source of such money. This allows big conglomerates (corporations and unions) to basically buy and sell candidates via unlimited campaign money.

It wouldn’t surprise me if an “election department” formed across various corporations and unions in a couple of month for the sole purpose of studying the political landscape and calculating the best strategy for the organization to spend campaign money.

Another objection comes at a philosophical level. Where in philosophical literature, which the Constitution owes its existence and justification, does it purport to endowing rights on corporations and unions? Many political theorists have painstakingly justified rights of individual men, but I have yet to see any arguments for the rights of a group (of individuals).

It can be argued that because man as an individual has rights, then it would not be a problem for a group of men to endow their rights and privileges to the union as an entity. Unfortunately, this does not follow easily, because most political theoretical literature that influenced the U.S. Constitution affirms that rights cannot be transferred to individual to another entity.

One can make a contract with such a union, but the union itself does not have the same rights as its members. That is why the U.S. government itself does not have the same constitutional rights as we, the citizens, do. We have a social contract relationship with the government, but that does not mean the government has the same rights as the citizens have. Remember, the Constitution was written to preserve the rights of citizens, not the rights of government.

My philosophical objection needs more work in terms of development, but I hope the readers get the point. I feel there were some behind the scenes special interest involved in the Supreme Court (rather than the Justices acting according to principle), but that is just mere speculation.

The next election cycle is going to involve more greens.