Corporate personhood and the right to vote

[TechBear_Seattle]

This came up in a discussion at work.

The courts have long held that corporations are "persons" and, as such, have the constitutional rights accorded to all persons; thus, corporations have the right to make campaign contributions and otherwise influence elections. Has there ever been a corporation that, based on this doctrine, registered to vote? I'm very curious to find out how far this legal fiction of personhood extends with regards to elections.

On a related question, are there any rights which are recognized as existing under the US Constitution for individuals which the courts have expressly stated does not extend to corporations and other legal fictions?

[annabanana]

1. Rights? No.

Responsibilities and Liabilities? You betcha. They don't jail the Boards of Directors when the companies break the law. They don't confisctate the property of the people whose companies are caught stealing from us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Rights? Yes, actually

It is well established case law that corporations have a "right" to donate to political parties and campaigns. The vast resources that large corporations have at their disposal have given them almost dictatorial powers over who is considered a "viable" candidate and who is allowed to be elected. Efforts to remove corporations from elections have invariably resulted in the courts reaffirming the corporations "constitutional rights."

I am looking for information on how far these "constitutional rights" extend.

[annabanana]

7. I was responding to your "related question"

question.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Ah, got it. Sorry for my sharp reply.

:blush:

[Gman]

2. Why would they not argue that they are entitled to the same number of votes

as they have shareholders? In other words if a company has 1.5 million individual shareholders, the company gets one vote for each individual shareholder to cast as the company sees fit. Individual eligibility to vote for shareholders would not be an issue as long as the company was incorporated in the US.

[cascadiance]

5. I guess then I could claim the right for all of my blood cells to vote as well!

As if they are shareholders for me as an equivalent "person"!

[nykym]

6. That would in essence

give those 1.5 millon shareholders a second vote if they were registered us voters.
Can you spell FRAUD!

[Gman]

9. Of course fraud issues would get fogged over in the clamor

over why it's so important that business be given the right(s) to vote. We wouldn't be allowed to be concerned about such petty things as it would be a threat to national security and the economic welfare of the country.

[jody]

3. I vaguely recall that one such individual right was at issue in

IMMERSION CORPORATION v. SONY

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. BS: Corporations and unions are forbidden to make campaign contributions to federal campaigns:

§ 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations

(a) In general
It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441---b000-.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Read your quote again

... any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress

There has not been a national bank since 1836 (the Federal Reserve is technically a private bank) and exceedingly few coroprations are organized under federal law. Most are formed under state laws and thus are not restricted by this statute. That is exactly why tobacco companies, credit card issuers, pharmaceutical corporations, arms manufacturers, health services conglomerates, insurance providers and a vast horde of other corporate special interests have come to dominate Congress and the White House.