"Corporations are People" vs "Corporate Personhood".

[JMS]

Had a discussion on this topic this morning and wanted to rant a bit.

Corporate Personhood is a 200 year old legal device/philosophy which was used to explain corporations rights and responsibilities in this country. It was used to explain / justify how corporate rights overlapped with people. Corporations could sue/be sued, Corporations could own land, they could contract and be contracted to provide services. This was the 18th century genesis of Corporate Person hood, but in this genesis there was no equivalence drawn between the rights of Corporations and People. Rather it was a devise which described a subset of rights and advocated how corporations should be treated.

In the 19th century corporations evolved to be able to raise great quantities of capital for efforts which required such resources; example: building rail roads. This gave corporations huge assets to bring to bear both for business endeavors but also for other pursuits. Such corporations spanned multiple states and with their vast capital began to influence local, state and even federal elections. These were new and different animals to what had existed in Jefferson's time and they existed for a period in a relative void. During this period various communities and states started to try to address this void by beginning to regulate them with mixed results. Beginning just after the civil war, in the 1870's corporate lawyers started to try to merge new constitutional amendments designed to protect former slaves like the fourteenth (ratified 1868) and it's Citizenship Clause to try to apply it to corporations using the 18th century Corporate Person hood precedents. They argued that corporations could exercise some of the rights of their shareholders to give themselves the same protections against state action accorded to "natural persons".

Railroads the most influential corporations of the late 19th century were arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protections clause) prevented states from regulating the maximum rates they could charge for shipping. These cases did not rely on just an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also on the Interstate Commerce clause. In all the earliest cases 1870 on, the Court based its decision on the Interstate Commerce clause. However, in 1886, in Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court held, that it considered the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to corporate activities. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection but only on a relatively narrow set of rights. ( own property, use of courts, liable, etc ).

The protections/rights extended to corporations in the 1886's and upheld by the courts since had no equivalence with those applied to people. For instance, political contributions to candidates in federal races by corporations was prohibited by the Tillman Act of 1907 even though individual contributions were unlimited. The court was silent on this for 100 years.

So how was the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission(2010) taken to allow unlimited corporate donations along constitutional grounds? By creating an unnatural mash-up of previous rulings. In 1978 Buckley v. Valeo it was held that limits on campaign contributions were legal on individuals; but for the first time equated spending money on elections by individuals to be first amendment protected speech. This decision was cited as justification for the court in Citizens United 2010, to give corporations the right to unlimited spending in our elections under the first amendment. Campaign donations were still limited, only corporations and individuals were free to spend without limits on their own. This ushered in the era of the Super PAC.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've learned to stay out of threads where JMS starts quoting Supreme Court cases willy-nilly.

[JMS]

I've learned to stay out of threads where JMS starts quoting Supreme Court cases willy-nilly.

So "staying out of the thread" means you comment but invest nothing in the conversation while promoting yourself as superior.

To date you have not stayed out of threads where I quoted the supreme court, nor made a reasoned point in such a thread.

[ixcuincle]

[JMS]

http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1051cbCOMIC-twyo-corporations3.jpg

Can't vote, they also don't have a recognized constitutional right to plead the 5th Amendment, (yet?)

United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, 1975

[Larry]

Can't vote, they also don't have a recognized constitutional right to plead the 5th Amendment, (yet?)

United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, 1975

How could a corporation plead the Fifth, in any case? A corporation can't take the stand.

[JMS]

How could a corporation plead the Fifth, in any case? A corporation can't take the stand.

That was the position of the court in 1975. To play devils advocate, if you can grant a corporation the right to "free speech", seems reasonable to grant it the right "to remain silent". Your objection, I will observe, isn't in granting the right, but rather how that right would be executed.

Perhaps allowing corporate officers to remain silent where they are not covered by a personal fifth amendment right because they aren't the subject of the prosecution.

.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How could a corporation plead the Fifth, in any case? A corporation can't take the stand.

I haven't read the case, but a corporation can take the stand through a corporate designee. In fact, a corporation can be compelled to take the stand through a corporate designee under F. R. 30((6). So, I haven't read the case, but it sounds like you can compel a corporation to take the stand and then it (the designee) cannot plead the fifth on behalf of the corp.

[JMS]

From my OP, it seems like Corporate Personhood was a construct used explain the abstraction of personal responsibilities/rights on non persons. The logical progression of that construct has now been used to give powers to corporations which the founding fathers never imagined or asserted...

The founding fathers had corporations, and they had free speech, and had lobbyists but they never associated the three. Rather this is a new thing created from a mash-up of court rulings none of which individually assert what is being asserted by the assemblage.

My biggest problem with this amalgamation runs directly at the more established concept asserted in the 1880's that rights afforded to an individual should be applied to corporations because they are a collection of individuals. Corporations are not a collection of individuals; they are an artificial construct used to facilitate business. Corporations are not representative bodies. If I control 51% of the stock myself I'm entirely free to ignore everybody else s voice in my corporation. Folks invest in Corporations to make money, or pursue economic goals, not to promote political policy. So why should I be free to use everybody else s money to pursue my personal agenda?

If you want to promote some political policy you can give money to the NRA which is a registered lobbyist. That they are also a corporation is tangential and only meaningful because it links the NRA ( lobbying effort ) to early 1800's language which clearly never was meant to apply to lobbying efforts.

When the NRA lobbies members of congress they do so overtly. they want their members to know exactly all the steps they are taking because their members see value in those activities.

The fact that corporations today are doing so anonymously is evidence that they want to pursue actions which the public including their shareholders would find objectionable. Actions which only are advocated by the few who control the funds and strings of power; not people make up that corporation. Corporations aren't democratic institutions. They are set up to enable leaders to make isolated decisions publicly and hold them accountable after the fact. Now we are saying these isolated corporate leaders can make political contributions and not be accountable because nobody knows they did it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

From my OP, it seems like Corporate Personhood was a construct used explain the abstraction of personal responsibilities/rights on non persons. The logical progression of that construct has now been used to give powers to corporations which the founding fathers never imagined or asserted...

The founding fathers had corporations, and they had free speech, and had lobbyists but they never associated the three. Rather this is a new thing created from a mash-up of court rulings none of which individually assert this.

My biggest problem with this ruling runs directly at the more established concept asserted in the 1870's that rights afforded to an individual can be applied to corporations because they are a collection of individuals. Corporations are not a collection of individuals; they are an artificial construct used to facilitate business. Corporations are not representative bodies. If I control 51% of the stock myself I'm entirely free to ignore everybody else s voice in my corporation. Folks invest in Corporations to make money, or pursue economic goals, not to promote political policy. So why should I be free to use everybody else s money to pursue my personal agenda?

If you want to promote some political policy you can give money to the NRA which is a registered lobbyist. That they are also a corporation is tangential and only meaningful because it links the NRA ( lobbying effort ) to early 1800's language which clearly never was meant to apply to lobbying efforts.

When the NRA lobbies members of congress they do so overtly. they want their members to know exactly all the steps they are taking because their members see value in those activities.

The fact that corporations today are doing so anonymously is evidence that they want to pursue actions which the public including their shareholders would find objectionable. Actions which only are advocated by the few who control the funds and strings of power; not people make up that corporation. Corporations aren't democratic institutions. They are set up to enable leaders to make isolated decisions publicly and hold them accountable after the fact. Now we are saying these isolated corporate leaders can make political contributions and not be accountable because nobody knows they did it.

I have no idea if what you're saying is well-researched or not, but I don't think its really relevant.

The reason corporations are compared to people is that in a lot of statutes, most notably the tax code, the law says that corporations should be treated as people for the purpose of that statute. So, people take that language and run with it.

[Kilmer17]

Isnt this a broader question about the power of the Court to determine whether or not ANYTHING is or is not Constituional?

Plenty of anti abortion folks use similar arguements to claim the Court was wrong in Roe.

[JMS]

I have no idea if what you're saying is well-researched or not, but I don't think its really relevant.

The reason corporations are compared to people is that in a lot of statutes, most notably the tax code, the law says that corporations should be treated as people for the purpose of that statute. So, people take that language and run with it.

The justification cited for granting corporations "free speech" is that individuals do not loose their rights when they form a collection. So the rights aforded to an individual should be afforded to a corporation. My point was corporations are not representative of the collection, but have access to resources of the collective; so that aforementioned truism is in error. That is not the reason corporations are being equated with people, but rather an argument why they should not be.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The justification cited for granting corporations "free speech" is that individuals do not loose their rights when they form a collection. So the rights aforded to an individual should be afforded to a corporation. My point was corporations are not representative but have access to resources of the collective; so that aforementioned truism is in error. That is not the reason corporations are being equated with people, but rather an argument why they should not be.

Oh man... I am almost going down this road, but I am resisting.

[JMS]

Isnt this a broader question about the power of the Court to determine whether or not ANYTHING is or is not Constitutional?

But I'm not saying the court doesn't have the right, I'm saying they are wrong, and why for discussion purposes.

I don't equate that with folks who argue against Roe, other than the fact we both object to supreme court rulings. The primary arguments against Roe are

1. The supreme court doesn't have the right,
   
2. The supreme court shouldn't interpret the constitution but simple read and apply it literally.
   

Neither reflects this discussion.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Oh man... I am almost going down this road, but I am resisting.

Go down the road.

Go!!!

Go!!!

Someone has to.....

Do it!!!!!!

---------- Post added July-18th-2012 at 01:58 PM ----------

Isnt this a broader question about the power of the Court to determine whether or not ANYTHING is or is not Constituional?

Who with a what now?

As far as I know, Marbury v. Madison has not been challenged recently.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Go down the road.

Go!!!

Go!!!

Someone has to.....

Do it!!!!!!

Its your turn.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Its your turn.

I've written something and deleted it and written it again.

I don't want to do this.

---------- Post added July-18th-2012 at 02:08 PM ----------

I'm not going to write a rant. I just want everyone to think about this.

Corporations are artificial constructs that exist only because the state grants them the right to exist.

[JMS]

Corporations are artificial constructs that exist only because the state grants them the right to exist.

I don't even know if that's a quote or if you are trying to attribute that to somebody else?

[twa]

Corporations are artificial constructs that exist only because the state grants them the right to exist.

Artificial or a natural order?....imo they are natural result of human behavior

[zoony]

if conservatives feel that corporations should be people, how would they feel about me marrying one?

[twa]

if conservatives feel that corporations should be people, how would they feel about me marrying one?

If you can find a unwed female one I have no objection.....the state has a issue with polygamy though

and here you thought the DOMA was targeting gays,when it really was targeting Corps

[Mad Mike]

From my OP, it seems like Corporate Personhood was a construct used explain the abstraction of personal responsibilities/rights on non persons. The logical progression of that construct has now been used to give powers to corporations which the founding fathers never imagined or asserted...

The founding fathers had corporations, and they had free speech, and had lobbyists but they never associated the three. Rather this is a new thing created from a mash-up of court rulings none of which individually assert what is being asserted by the assemblage.

My biggest problem with this amalgamation runs directly at the more established concept asserted in the 1880's that rights afforded to an individual should be applied to corporations because they are a collection of individuals. Corporations are not a collection of individuals; they are an artificial construct used to facilitate business. Corporations are not representative bodies. If I control 51% of the stock myself I'm entirely free to ignore everybody else s voice in my corporation. Folks invest in Corporations to make money, or pursue economic goals, not to promote political policy. So why should I be free to use everybody else s money to pursue my personal agenda?

If you want to promote some political policy you can give money to the NRA which is a registered lobbyist. That they are also a corporation is tangential and only meaningful because it links the NRA ( lobbying effort ) to early 1800's language which clearly never was meant to apply to lobbying efforts.

When the NRA lobbies members of congress they do so overtly. they want their members to know exactly all the steps they are taking because their members see value in those activities.

The fact that corporations today are doing so anonymously is evidence that they want to pursue actions which the public including their shareholders would find objectionable. Actions which only are advocated by the few who control the funds and strings of power; not people make up that corporation. Corporations aren't democratic institutions. They are set up to enable leaders to make isolated decisions publicly and hold them accountable after the fact. Now we are saying these isolated corporate leaders can make political contributions and not be accountable because nobody knows they did it.

An intelligent well thought out position. Now could you please explain it to Romney?