The issue of the Protection of Corporate Political Speech case is focused on the question: Why do corporations receive legal protections for political speeches, while they provide limitations to the company’s accountability to people? The problem is that critics exemplify such corporations as Tyco, Enron, and WorldCom stating that their business failures lacked responsibilities for the employees, who suffered considerable losses, through the enterprise’s protection by the law. The analysis of the case conclusion disclosed the fact that criticism should have been concentrated on the fact, that the Supreme Court treated the corporations as separate individuals. The concept of ‘personhood’ in corporations’ business promotion provides the same legal protection to all the operations, as to every individual. It is necessary to underline the fact that the conclusion is related to the interrelation between ‘personhood’ and ‘political speech’ protection granted to every person, as well as corporation. (Kubasek, Browne, and Brennan, 1996) The issue of the case Protection of Corporate Political Speech is referred to as its argumentative clarification on the basis of the First Amendment granting individuals free speech rights. It is necessary to stress that the case can be analyzed through legal reasoning found in 1889, Minneapolis St. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith, 129 US 26, when the companies were recognized as persons with the same legal protections to political speeches. (Protection of Corporate Political Speech, 143) Free speech right is combined with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, identifying that constitution framing of political speech protection should be promoted for all the parties, individuals, and corporations. The reasoning for corporations’ personhood is based on the right to vote, which is obtained by corporations as artificial persons. This leads to the idea that corporations impact political culture and laws through political speeches, and the limitations of their protective rights mean prohibition of their participation in any political process. The right to vote should also be prohibited in case of their deprivation of political speeches protection. (Kubasek, Browne, and Brennan, 1996) There is a need to analyze legal reasoning in terms of its ambiguity. Persons are involved in participation in political processes through voting and political speeches. In case the corporations would not have the same rights, so they are discriminated against in their free political expressions. On the one hand, the corporations are treated as persons and can have the legal protection of their political speeches; but on the other hand, corporations are said not to have equal political representation, though their rights for political speeches protections should be preserved, as a significant step in political realm equality. Political reasoning ambiguity is also based on the idea that the corporations’ political speech protection and promotion are not the same as the perception of these speeches by the population. Their rights to express opinions do not presuppose support of these opinions by the majority. So, the concept of ‘personhood’ characterizing corporations’ participation in political processes can be treated through ambiguity; it provides protection for corporations’ political speeches and grants the rights to participate in poli