Corporations Aren't People

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Corporate personhood" gives corporations -- entirely artificial entities created by the state -- the same individual rights that the framers fought and died to secure for flesh-and-blood citizens (or at least for white male property-holders, but you get the idea). The doctrine started in England reasonably enough; it was only by considering corporations "persons" that they could be taken to court and sued. But during the 19th century, the Robber Barons and a few corrupt jurists deep in their pockets took the concept to a whole new level. After the Civil War, while many of those same interests were fighting to keep African Americans from being enfranchised, the doctrine took on new weight -- the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was extended to corporations, and Thomas Jefferson slowly rolled over in his grave. The trend of granting more and more rights to corporations continues today.

As long as these ideas are embedded in our legal system, talk of cleaning up government -- of campaign finance and lobby reform -- are just that: talk. On these fundamental issues of democratic participation, incremental reform is a road leading nowhere.

Which is why we need bold, populist ideas for real structural reform. I say let's rip a page from Karl Rove's Scorched-Earth Politics for Dummies and offer a progressive Constitutional Amendment that would end this madness once and for all.

That could be as simple as a one-line amendment that rolls back Buckley by explicitly stating that regulating the amount of money donated to campaigns or setting limits on what candidates spend on advertising isn't the same as putting limits on political speech.

But I think something even bolder is in order. I think it's time for a Defense of Human Citizenship Amendment -- language that would strip the "personhood" from corporations and give reformers a fighting chance to establish a true democracy in the United States.

It should be as brief and straightforward as the Republicans' gay marriage amendment:

SECTION 1. Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that citizenship or the legal incidents thereof be granted to corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or trusts.

This would be great policy if enacted, and great politics regardless of whether it were to become law. A failing campaign to restore human citizenship would bring what has long been a contentious debate in legal and public policy circles into the mainstream. It would be the left's turn to decry "judicial activism" of the most pernicious kind, and it would be a valuable opportunity for some real civic education for the broader electorate. We need that; polls show that a majority of voters feel that corporations have too much influence over the political realm, but most Americans don't understand the mechanisms with which they maintain and wield that power.

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/story/38406/

Edited July 3, 2006 by StevenJinky

[Artegal 1]

I don't understand this post--giving citizenship to corporation is bad? But if a corporation is explicitly exempted from citizenship--then couldn't a corporation then turn and say that taxation without representation was the result--and refuse to pay capital gains, and corporate income taxes, or even social security or sales tax.

It seems to me that making the corporation a sort of entity that is therefore like a citizen is justified---it certainly gives the corporation rights--but also responsibilities to be within the law of the land.

And we hear the catch phrase good corporate citizen. And if you then denounce all corporations as non-citizens, then were does the corporation go? Off shore to Bermuda as many have already done so.

Anyway don't see where this idea will accomplish campaign finance reform which seems to be the proponents idea for why he wants to make corporations illegal aliens.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Artegal,

This proposal is a wet-dream for anti-corporatists. All they want is to get off, is that so bad?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't understand this post--giving citizenship to corporation is bad? But if a corporation is explicitly exempted from citizenship--then couldn't a corporation then turn and say that taxation without representation was the result--and refuse to pay capital gains, and corporate income taxes, or even social security or sales tax.

It seems to me that making the corporation a sort of entity that is therefore like a citizen is justified---it certainly gives the corporation rights--but also responsibilities to be within the law of the land.

And we hear the catch phrase good corporate citizen. And if you then denounce all corporations as non-citizens, then were does the corporation go? Off shore to Bermuda as many have already done so.

Anyway don't see where this idea will accomplish campaign finance reform which seems to be the proponents idea for why he wants to make corporations illegal aliens.

It's a perversion of personhood. Corporations should have rights as pertaining to a business but not as a person. There is a difference. The way the laws are currently established, a corporation, while enjoying individual rights cannot be held criminally liable for breaking the law. How do imprison a corporation for criminal activity?

Edited July 3, 2006 by StevenJinky

[Artegal 1]

You don't imprison a corporation for breaking the law, because its the people within the corporation that break the law not the corporation. Just as guns are not charged with murder in cases of unlawful shootings--but the person that pulled the trigger is charged with murder. The corporation is just a vehicle for business--but behind the vehichle you have a driver--the CEO, CFO, etc.

But still even with your logic--how would explicity excluding corporations as citizens make the prosecution of corporate wrong doing any more successful?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You don't imprison a corporation for breaking the law, because its the people within the corporation that break the law not the corporation. Just as guns are not charged with murder in cases of unlawful shootings--but the person that pulled the trigger is charged with murder. The corporation is just a vehicle for business--but behind the vehichle you have a driver--the CEO, CFO, etc.

But still even with your logic--how would explicity excluding corporations as citizens make the prosecution of corporate wrong doing any more successful?

But then you're not really treating them the same as an individual? Do you see the the big gaping hole in the logic of giving personhood to corporations? It's impossible for the very reason you pointed out. Yes, the corporation is just a vehicle and therefore should not be given the full status and priveledges of an individual. Thank you making that clear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It sounds as though individuals could hide behind the 'person' of the corporation to avoid individual prosecution.

[Artegal 1]

Okay but when has a defense attorney ever stood up in court and said my client is innocent--it was Corporation that did the crime? I mean I just don't see where explicit defining a citizen as a human being will make enforcing laws against corporate wrong doing any more stronger. There isn't a connection. Its like saying well if we state that Guns are not citizens then the murder rate will drop. There isn't a correlation.

And if you explicitly exlude a corporation as a citizen then the corporate board members could then state they are not subject to US law or taxation sense they are not considered apart of the rights and priviledges nor representation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Okay but when has a defense attorney ever stood up in court and said my client is innocent--it was Corporation that did the crime? I mean I just don't see where explicit defining a citizen as a human being will make enforcing laws against corporate wrong doing any more stronger. There isn't a connection. Its like saying well if we state that Guns are not citizens then the murder rate will drop. There isn't a correlation.

And if you explicitly exlude a corporation as a citizen then the corporate board members could then state they are not subject to US law or taxation sense they are not considered apart of the rights and priviledges nor representation.

It means you go after the individuals responsible within the corporation for their criminal activity without them using the corporation as a legal shield as Fishdude pointed out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It seems rather obvious to me - how often have you had to deal with a corporation only to be met with a faceless, impenetrable monolith?

Corporate structure already acts like shield for individual incompetance, its not a great leap of logic to imagine that crime would be different. Just look at the daily fines Microsoft is receiving.

[Artegal 1]

Well then you make a law that puts in the corporate charter--which to be a corporation you must be chartered in a state--that states that the CEO is criminally responsible for all goings on by his corporation. There is already such laws in the Military where the commander is held responsible for the entity or group under his command.

I don't see where puting a line in the constitution that says that citizens are human beings only would help enforce the law.

Both of you have stated another argument that the corporation are legal shields. But how is it that stating a corporate entity is not a person or a citizen help remove that sheild.

You have numerous legal cases where rights granted only to citizens of the USA are granted to illegal aliens, foreign nationals captured overseas and extradited etc. So excluded someone or something as a non-citizen will not preclude that someone or something from having the protection of the courts. There are numerous cases where non-citizen have sued US corporations in US courts. But now take a case where a US citizen wants to sue a non-US corporation--what would be the recourse then? As you know non-jurisdiction would likely be the out come. As has happened in some cases. If you then take away citizenship from all US chartered corporations that would just make the sheild of responsibility even greater. The corporation could state, we are not even a citizen of your country because of the explicit exemption you put in to the constitution, and therefore our corporate charter and any US law is non-binding.

Already corporations have sought the protection of being a non-citizen of the USA, they do it now by being chartered in off-shore countries such as Bermuda, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Panama, or Liberia. These corporations are then safe from US Laws more so than a US chartered corporation.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Artegal

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well then you make a law that puts in the corporate charter--which to be a corporation you must be chartered in a state--that states that the CEO is criminally responsible for all goings on by his corporation. There is already such laws in the Military where the commander is held responsible for the entity or group under his command.

I don't see where puting a line in the constitution that says that citizens are human beings only would help enforce the law.

Both of you have stated another argument that the corporation are legal shields. But how is it that stating a corporate entity is not a person or a citizen help remove that sheild.

You have numerous legal cases where rights granted only to citizens of the USA are granted to illegal aliens, foreign nationals captured overseas and extradited etc. So excluded someone or something as a non-citizen will not preclude that someone or something from having the protection of the courts. There are numerous cases where non-citizen have sued US corporations in US courts. But now take a case where a US citizen wants to sue a non-US corporation--what would be the recourse then? As you know non-jurisdiction would likely be the out come. As has happened in some cases. If you then take away citizenship from all US chartered corporations that would just make the sheild of responsibility even greater. The corporation could state, we are not even a citizen of your country because of the explicit exemption you put in to the constitution, and therefore our corporate charter and any US law is non-binding.

Already corporations have sought the protection of being a non-citizen of the USA, they do it now by being chartered in off-shore countries such as Bermuda, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Panama, or Liberia. These corporations are then safe from US Laws more so than a US chartered corporation.

Corporations, chartered by governments, are subject to the people with the government acting as an intermediary. Corporate personhood allows the wealthiest citizens to use corporations to control the government and use it as an intermediary to impose their will upon the people.

Mussolini's fascist government was built upon corporatism - which gave legislative power to the corporations. When VP Cheney invited leaders from the Energy Industry to form public policy in a closed door meeting (this is a fact) - how is that any different?

[yabasta 0]

Has everybody seen The Corporation?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=47...p;q=corporation

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Has everybody seen The Corporation?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=47...p;q=corporation

I'll have to watch when I'm at home. Looks interesting.

[yabasta 0]

It is long but very thorough and interesting.