VA Citizens Consumer Council: A Comparative Analysis

The productivity and well-being of a society, and its members, parallels with how well that society regulates the benefits of trade and exchange. The law monitors and standardizes business policy, trade and exchange as it is the lifeblood of our economy. There is a juxtaposition within the United States legal system concerning commercial speech and free market trade, as the law supports a free market system yet the lines become misconstrued concerning commercial speech. A society’s economic climate sets the tone for the social well-being and productivity of its citizens, and although the decisions and laws implemented by the judicial system are for the public good, they do not support social cooperation with respect to commercial speech in
As Justice Blackmun states in section IV of VA Pharmacy Board v. VA Citizens Consumer Council: “The “idea” he(the pharmacist) wishes to communicate is simply this: ‘I will sell you the X prescription at the Y price’” (p.6). However, the boundaries of commercial speech are unclear as the court focuses on the interest and motive advertiser’s as opposed to simply the content of his speech. There is a sharp contrast of how the first amendment is applied traditionally than its application to commercial speech; the first amendment was created with the implication to be speaker oriented, yet in respect to commercial speech the amendment becomes audience oriented. The audience being society and how it chooses to allocate its resources. This paternalistic approach by the court is exemplified in Justice Blackmun’s
VA Citizens Consumer Council; his dissent was based on the grounds that applying the amendment to commercial speech was an overextension of the first amendment. However, in Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., Rehnquist joined the majority opinion in upholding that the state statute which prohibits the alcoholic content on beer labels is a violation of the first amendment. The dramatic shift of Rehnquist’s views in regards to commercial speech exemplifies how the doctrine has expanded since the VA Pharmacy Board v. VA Citizens Consumer Council case. The doctrine has become an economic due process and a mechanism for deregulation. The process and boundaries set in which government decision making occurs has a direct effect on public opinion and policy as the constitutional value of free, flowing information distribution is in play in many sectors of society when litigation arises. The risk the courts run by not characterizing commercial speech is endangering the first amendment in becoming the arena for reviewing economic regulations and commercial endeavors, which could be a potential threat to the state of a free market