Corporate Personhood

[Egalitariat]

I have read several posts here over the last several months that endorse the concept of "outlawing corporate personhood".

What exactly does that mean?

[varkam]

1. IIRC, the idea of personhood for corporations came about shortly after the passage of

the 14th Amendment to the USC. What that means is that corporations are basically "constructive people" - they're entitled to all the same due process and equal protections as you or me...except that they aren't technically people. At least, that's how I understand it.

[On the Road]

4. Yes, and There's Even Some Question

about the way it became precedent. Apparently the decision that everyone attributes it to didn't exactly say that, but it was added later in the abstract.

Be that as it may, unfortunately it's a matter of settled law. If you believe in stare decisis as a defense against overturning Roe v Wade, you need to get used to corporate personhood unless there's a constitutional amendment.

What I dislike about the interpretation, though, is that it perversely undermines individual rights. The Supreme Court is generally concerned with the limits of rights and how conflicting rights balance each other. Whenever corporate personhood comes into play, an individual's rights are balanced against a huge economic enterprise. Guess who usually wins?

[Sal Minella]

6. And the tobacco corporations firmly believe that Free Speech should allow them to advertise

cigarettes to 12-year-olds. Any attempt at restricting tobacco advertising to children is always promptly met with shrieks about restricting the right of Freedom of Speech for the tobacco companies. Ya gotta love it.

[RB TexLa]

2. I guess they want to be able to sue and take shareholders personal property in a lawsuit

against a corporation.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Nope. Wrong. nt

[Egalitariat]

12. Jody specifically disagrees with you in Post #3.

So he's at least partially right.

[Truth2Tell]

14. MM, I see that. Fair point.

Although I wouldn't say it's the position or the motivation of most advocates for the abolition of corporate person-hood. Of course some responsibility for corporate actions should fall on the common shareholders, but most reasonable proposals limit that to the loss of their investment. Board members and officers are a different story altogether.

[jody]

3. The issue began with a misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v.

Southern Pacific Railroad.

Amending our Constitution to prohibit corporations from having any of the rights of individuals is in the top five on my list along with abolishing most forms of limited liability for stockholders of corporations that protect their personal fortunes when they mismanage a corporation into bankruptcy.

Wiki is not an authority but you might find links to useful discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

[givemebackmycountry]

5. Watch the movie "The Corporation"

It will answer any question you may have and shock and scare the crap out of you.

Highly recommended.

[No.23]

7. Ralph Nader has consistently addressed this specific issue...

for years and years.

I can't recall any Democrat that has also, on the other hand.

Which may explain why so few may be familiar with it.

[PDJane]

8. I responded earlier, sorry..........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5210555&mesg_id=5211459

[originalpckelly]

9. Corporations are treated as individuals as it concerns rights...

and legal contracts. This allows them to get around regulations on their "speech" and other rights, and allows them to enter into legal contracts, as if they were people.

The issue, for me personally, is that corporate personhood only has so much to do with the problems of this country. It is certainly and absurd idea to equate a body of people (which is what corpus is in latin, think corpse) with one person. You could see the utility of limiting liability for the existence of a business, and that it would encourage people to take risks, but there is a point where it becomes a method of control. I argue that it's possible to assign personal, business and taxation identities to each individual person, to accomplish the separation of personal and business finances. I would create yet a third identity to hold tax dollars until they are spent on services, or released into either of the two identities, if someone should fall on hard times.

[99th_Monkey]

10. Here's some links - Corporate charters are the key to taming the beast, but it's an uphill battle.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2864431

http://www.jonentine.com/articles/taming_corp_beast.htm

[JSK]

13. Read Thom Hartmann's book

"Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights"

< a startling story that will forever change your understanding of American history. He begins by uncovering an original eyewitness account of the Boston Tea Party and demonstrates that it was provoked not by "taxation without representation" as is commonly suggested but by the specific actions of the East India Company, which represented the commericial interests of the British elite.

Hartmann then describes the history of the Fourteenth Amendment--created at the end of the Civil War to grant basic rights to freed slaves--and how it has been used by lawyers representing corporate interests to extend additional rights to businesses far more frequently than to freed slaves. Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as "artificial persons." but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were "persons" and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.>

http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporate-Dominance-Rights/dp/1579549551

Thom talks about this a lot on his program. Mind-blowing to learn from him that the original ruling re corporate "personhood" wasn't even an actual Supreme Court decision. Subsequent decisions (in favor of personhood) were based on a HEADLINE written about the original case (Santa Clara County v. the railroad) that wasn't even accurate.

[JSK]

15. kick n/t