Forum Post: Ending corporate personhood is a very bad idea.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 24, 2011, 8:50 p.m. EST by booshington
(397)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Treating corporations like people allows you to sue them in court, it allows the government to charge and prosecute them for committing crimes and it allows corporations (for example, a small business) to apply for loans to keep itself running among other important things.
Ending all that would be bad. Instead we need to remove the ability for a corporation (the group of individuals) to influence elections. How do we do that?
Discuss.
This is a very good post and I have enjoyed reading the responses. It is clear to me now that there are so many more pople that can represent our republic much better than those parties that we seem to keep electing and the people that they sponser. We still have a chance to bring the U.S. back to the people without incident. However, with the electoral vote, it is not looking very promising.
I actually prefer a more moderate tone of not throwing out both parties as a whole.
The system is infected but it is not wholly bad. There are politicians from every party that have the best intentions, who truly care about the people they represent. To say that all democrats and all republicans are inherently bad is going to be counter-productive and not entirely true in the end.
Boosh do you believe this system of lesser of two evils works to your liking. Should we not want more choice in our election. I'm not one to throw away fixable machines, but this oligopoly system needs a massive tune up as we both agreed upon.We have a decision to make, either to ask the question: should we have a multiparty system as to a couple party system. This is a not simple question but is fundamental question of our freedoms, republic and responsibility.
I think two parties is fine actually. The ideals of both parties essentially oppose each other and the goal is to land in the middle.
The problem is the amount of money involved. Getting corporate money out of politics would probably improve the lives of Americans over time a great deal.
Maybe but some places that are dark red or blue will never have the other party get in so they create a crony system that will always be comforted at the fact they are locked in and without a major screw up they will have it for life.
http://www.buddyroemer.com/ Limits on PACs and lobbying as proposed by Gov Roemer. His ideas do not require overturning the Citizens United decision.
Thanks for the link, it looks like he has some well grounded ideas. I'd just like to see it go further in order to give every candidate an equal chance.
Yes, I agree. But his ideas may be more realistic. Being that it won't require Constitutional Amendment? I think this movement has done alot to bring awareness, but I'm getting a little concerned about the lack of leadership, whether thats really effective. And the lack of focus. Thats why I'm seriously looking into this guy. I hope the movement does well and can accomplish some things, but with the lack of focus, I really wonder. May be a better use of my time to do volunteer work for Roemer. I don't know. Maybe a little of both! I've come to kind of enjoy hanging out here!
I think seeking out politicians that are aligned with your views after receiving a lot of information that has come out of OWS is a good thing.
I imagine a lot of people are now looking at candidates that support campaign finance reforms and other popular messages surrounding the movement.
Do you know any other candidates supporting campaign reform?
You can do all the things you mentioned above without corporations being people. In fact, there is no ruling granting corporations all the rights of people. There was a recent Supreme Court decision, for example, that specifically ruled that corporations don't have the same privacy rights as people.
Correct. They can't marry or vote (literally) either.
However, scrapping the whole notion and trying to come up with a whole new set of rules seems inefficient just to tackle one problem. Why not modify the existing setup? I think that would go over better with most Americans.
They also can't be arrested when they launder money for Mexican drug traffickers. They also can't be locked up for making illegal bargains with foreign nations we are at war with.
Corporations do not have personhood (the state of being a person) and need to be treated as separate entities.
They can actually, just being a corporation doesn't mean you can break the law all you want. They can still be charged with crimes, unfortunately the result is generally huge fines instead of locking up the people responsible like it should be.
"unfortunately the result is generally huge fines instead of locking up the people responsible like it should be."
Exactly, they retain all the rights of people but none of the responsibility because they can neither feel guilt nor be reformed for their crimes. The people acting on its behalf can commit crimes, but in the end point to nothing but an entity that they acted on behalf of. I don't even blame the companies. The system, as it is, makes it virtually impossible for them to stay competitive without competing over who can be the most immoral.
Ending the legal protection of corporations as people does not eliminate the ability to sue or hold legally accountable the individuals who own a corporation and direct a corporation's activities - shareholders, board, etc. Right now, the corporation acts as a front group facade for individuals who are, typically, not held publicly and legally accountable as individuals when the corporation they own and run is sued.
Imagine, instead of bringing XYZ corporation to court as an entity inand of itself with faceless, nameless individuals - you are bringing the actual CEO, CFO, and entire Board as indivividuals to court of the corporation - named publicly and held legally accountable themselves as persons who can't hide behind the corporate front. Ideally, the corporation is a collective for individuals to pool their resources to conduct business in a more efficient manner - while still being legally held accountable as individuals for their actions not as the corporate entity whereby the individuals escape responsibility for any crimes they commit.
There should still be a legal procedure for chartering corporation with all owners and partners legally bound and accountable as individuals for the conduct of their business for and on behalf of said corporation, but the legal recognition and protection of the corporation itself as a person should be ended.
It also doesn't prohibit a corporation from getting loans, as it would then fall to the individual owners and partners, themselves, to be approved and held responsible for a loan - not the corporate entity.
I would encourage the original poster to think more clearly about this issue.
Ending the legal protection of corporations as people does not eliminate the ability to sue or hold legally accountable the individuals who own a corporation and direct a corporation's activities - shareholders, board, etc. Right now, the corporation acts as a front group facade for individuals who are, typically, not held publicly and legally accountable as individuals when the corporation they own and run is sued.
Imagine, instead of bringing XYZ corporation to court as an entity inand of itself with faceless, nameless individuals - you are bringing the actual CEO, CFO, and entire Board as indivividuals to court of the corporation - named publicly and held legally accountable themselves as persons who can't hide behind the corporate front. Ideally, the corporation is a collective for individuals to pool their resources to conduct business in a more efficient manner - while still being legally held accountable as individuals for their actions not as the corporate entity whereby the individuals escape responsibility for any crimes they commit.
There should still be a legal procedure for chartering corporation with all owners and partners legally bound and accountable as individuals for the conduct of their business for and on behalf of said corporation, but the legal recognition and protection of the corporation itself as a person should be ended.
It also doesn't prohibit a corporation from getting loans, as it would then fall to the individual owners and partners, themselves, to be approved and held responsible for a loan - not the corporate entity.
I would encourage the original poster to think more clearly about this issue.
One of the primary reasons for incorporating or forming an LLC is to limit the personal liability of the owners in case of litigation against the company as a whole.
If they break the law they can still be charged with crimes as individuals even now.
Simple, in theory, but it seems that everyone is too afraid of the pushback. Article V of the constitution allows individuals to petition their state legislatures to demand that Congress grant us a constitutional convention under Article 5. Then, we get the corporate money out of politics and our voice gets heard by voters who are bound to us more than the corporations.
http://www.articlevmeeting.info
Yes, we need a constitutional amendment to get money out of federal elections. Congress will not do it, in thrall as they are to corporate interests. Here is what the Constitution says: US Constitution
Article V: Amendment Process
The Congress, [...] on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, [...] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
We can do this, boys and girls, just like we got the Civil Rights laws passed. (Yeah, I'm old.) Neither is easy; both are supremely worthwhile.
Generally if it isn't easy, it's worth it.
Boosh I've reread what you said and you are right about corporations being ruled as people back in the 1810's. The mistake I made was of along the lines of the bill of rights/amendments,also the citizen untied lead me to believe this was happening just in this century alone.You are right on them being able to sue and they become people(under the 14th) back in 1886 under Santa Clara county v southern pacific railroad ruling which I had to double check. I'm sorry for doubting you,but it doesn't seem like common sense ruled here. I would also contend that if the united states can sue and get sued than why can't corporations sue and be sued.
I'd say it is damn respectable of you to post this and I appreciate it.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the last line but corporations can in fact sue and be sued. A good example of this is all the patent lawsuits going around right now, corporations suing each other.
I'm just remarking that they can be striped of there humanhood and still be able do most things they use to be able to do like sue and be sued. I get why they did it but they took it to the extreme.
Ah. That's true, however I don't feel like we really need to go that far. There are more efficient means of controlling corporate behavior in politics than throwing out 200 years of systems and rewriting everything from scratch.
I am as eager as you are to know the answer.
How about the following:
Corporate Lobbyists STOP Occupying DC!
But if you ban corporate lobbyists you have to ban them all and that would be unconstitutional. It's an important right to be able to lobby your government.
A friend of mine had a good idea - ban all campaign donations....from anyone. A candidate who gets the signatures to run for office should get a set amount of public money to run their campaign. Not only does this eliminate lobbying, but it puts everyone on a level playing field. An additional amount would be released to the candidate who wins the primaries in each party.
This way, every American contributes proportionally through taxation to enjoy the benefits of Democracy, and makes the process far more democratic.
That's precisely what I would like to see.
Campaigns that are run strictly on tax-payer dollars, the same amount goes to each candidate and the same airtime is given to each one.
the objection to citizens united which I most hear is the idea that corporate money used in political advertising is protected as free speech, since they are 'persons', right? is the courts decision based on specific language in the constitution or precedent?? or is it more of an interpretation or opinion of the court?
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
From what I understand it's just an interpretation. Corporations don't have all the rights of persons so why should their speech be protected?
What we need is publicly funded elections - we may actually end up with representatives that want to serve the country rather than line their own pockets!
My thoughts exactly.
Your posts are well thought out. Whatever you call it right now the corporations and special interest (including unions) are "speaking" as if they represent millions of Americans. It is their vast sums of money that is skewing our political landscape and twisting our laws in their favor - often to the detriment of the American citizen. I'm sure that a group of 30 or so everyday citizens could lock themselves in a room for three days and hash out a sensible, reasonable approach to get the money out of our politics. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would support it. This should be the main goal of these protests. I commend you for being able to keep a real discussion going on this topic, for I feel it is the central issue that is being lost in the discussion of the symptoms rather than the root cause.
Yeah if there are two things I've heard more than any other two things throughout all of this it's get the money out of politics and reign in Wall St.
I laid out my thoughts on which direction to go here:
http://occupywallst.org/article/so-called-demands-working-group/#comment-183771
How do explain the fact that the full term for corporations are limited liability corporations or LLC. They are only answerable to their stock holders and people with enough money to beat them at the art of litigation. they have not a body to kick nor a soul to damn as some one once said.
They can be sued, charged with crimes and dismantled by the government.
"Corporations" are not some all powerful beings.
yeah, that is easier said than done. And besides most corporate law suits are settled in the discovery portion of litigation, meaning the plaintiff was paid off, or through summery motions, meaning the judge was most likely paid off. Then if you win, they send the case to the supreme courts. Before you get through the labyrinth, you are either broke or to old to enjoy your newly won justice.
If the plaintiff accepts.. not much we can do about that unless you make settling illegal.
A back door settling means that no one knows what notorious dealings they have struct. they end with gag orders. That is not good for the market place of ideas nor the market.
Whether you can sue an organization like a corporation in court, or whether they can apply for loans, depends on the structure of our legal system as a whole and does not hinge exclusively on the concept of "person-hood".
Corporations are artificial entities established BY governments. Every aspect of their rights, obligations and liability can be in turn determined by government without declaring these abstract entities "people".
Possibly, but we've built a system for almost 200 years revolving around the idea that they are persons, so to can the entire system to fix one problem seems inefficient to me.
here is a group that was recently formed to try to push a amendment through to stop corporate personhood.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
join and help end corporate personhood
I don't think ending corporate personhood is a good idea unfortunately, but thanks.
Limit campaign contributions of people and corporations to something everyone can afford. Like 10-20 bucks
exactly!!!
exactly!!!
do human rights give the corp privacy
are worker allowed to talk about there wage?
As mentioned elsewhere corporations do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, however I haven't confirmed that bit.
And of course workers are allowed to talk about anything they want, that is freedom of speech.
Well, we need to end the ability of corporations to influence elections, agreed. We also need to limit the ability of corporations to influence legislation to the point where a corporate lobbyist can have no more access to a senator or congressman than you or I can. And I do mean that literally, corporate types can show up at the town-hall meetings & afternoon coffees like the rest of us have to.
That all being said, how to do that? Well, eliminating corporate influence on elections might do most of it. Complete public financing of all election campaigns would probably do it. Corporate types can influence policy because they're big campaign donors - they can't swing the election, they can't swing policy.
There are a lot more lobbyists in Washington than just those representing large corporations. Anyone can send a lobbyist down there.
Getting corporate money out of elections will remove a huge amount of the temptation a politician would have to vote in favor of the corporation instead of the people.
I think we mostly agree here. Yes there are lobbyists that are not corporate, environmental organizations, right to life organizations, pro choice organizations, etc. . But, if you put the lobbying organization on level playing field for access with the individual you still do a lot to clean up the legislative process, I think.
In any case, removal of corporate money from elections is certainly needed. But, as with lobbyists, big contributors aren't always corporate (same organizations as with lobbyists, very often) pure public financing of election campaigns still seems the only good way to go.
I think the removal of all corporate money (including those "personal" contributions of $2,500) from elections would have a natural affect of removing the problem areas of lobbying as well.
Think of it this way. A corporation pays a lobbyist huge sums of money because he has access to congressmen. The congressmen has a temptation to do what the corporation wishes because of the incoming campaign dollars.
Remove that temptation and what power does that lobbyist now wield? No more than any other person, since that corporation is now severely limited in the ways it can help the politician. If that happens, corporate lobbyist would become far less effective, then they would be paid less, and eventually the playing field would be leveled out.
To be sure, what you say is all good, and I agree - as far as it goes.
But try this scenario. Let's say Mitt Romney (just because he's a very rich guy) has to do without corporate donors, & so does everyone else in the presidential campaign. OK, but Mitt's a corporate guy, and he's got a lot of money of his own to spend in a campaign. Once elected, does he not have a natural loyalty to his corporate buddies? Point is - make the candidates run on a level playing field as well. Public financing of campaigns, even to the point of FCC regulation guaranteeing equal time, in the same time slots. Every candidate has the same opportunity to send their message. A debate of ideas, and polices, not of dollars.
It's the only way to be sure.
Mitt Romney would not be on anyone's radar at all if it weren't for corporate money being involved. I would absolutely support a completely level playing field with respect to time on air and money for campaigns.
The only people that will be popular will eventually be only those whose positions and ideals and convictions resonate with the general public. Not those who have spent the most millions on TV ads that bombard the public with their name.
Good point. I would also like to talk about citizenship. Is a global corporation a citizen? Should non citizens be able to influence our government through money?
I believe it is against the law for non-citizens to contribute to political campaigns here. I could be wrong though.
Very interesting point and one I honestly never considered.
You can sue corporations.
Because they are "people."
Not sure what you're point is though as I mentioned that in the OP.
limited liability corporation or LLC
you are aware that corporations have protection under the law about lawsuits.this has the norm for years.they will have to sue the shareholders because they are part owners of stock also C.U.N. has only been on the books for about two or three years at the most. wounder how the corporations did without it. note its been about two years in that this has been around.http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents/
You could always sue them Henry fords corporation got sued several times and that was before it was a human.This whole thinking of non humans as human has just shown up recently. but I can be persuaded I will read anything laws,books and anything else which regards the person hood of corporations. I think you should look at this poll this poll. http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1102a6Trend.pd
Corporations received status as "persons" long before Henry Ford built any cars. 1817 I believe was the year.
Your so wrong about how business works there are three types of business first solo owner then partnerships then corporations the first two are owned by the people who's names are on the deeds. the third is owned by the stock/bond holder these people are ultimately financially responsible for the any debts and obligation that the corporation that they may run into as for the others those are the person or partners problems one hundred percent. I'm a small business owner I've had to study on which one I wanted to become. so I choose a solo venture. So I think I'm more qualified then anyone else on this board to talk about this issues.
It was 1819, not 1817, my bad. What were you saying about how qualified you are and how wrong I am?
"In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), corporations were recognized as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce those contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2]"
"More qualified than anyone else"? Thats quite a statement. My friend is a corporation, has 5 employees.
Lets not twist my words your forgetting on this board is your friend on this board is he talking then if not then yes and I was a business major in college and have one so. again I will stick to my first statement.
How are you not able to type coherent sentences yet you can run a company?
because I like messing with grammar Nazis.
Touche
Treating corporations as legal entities, but not as persons once and for all removes the possibility of the justice system to reinterpret the constitution and bestow rights on corporations without the people deciding upon it.
You'd have to come up with a new way to give them the rights of persons that are actually good for them to have.
We'd have to come up with new ways to define the rights of corporations. The right to go into contract is one of the most obvious ones, the right to litigate is also important.
Removing corporate personhood is all about creating clarity. The way it stands now, the Supreme Court can pick and choose which elements of the constitution apply to corporations and which not.
I think such decisions belong with the people.
Very well said!
So what you're proposing is a system where each right a corporation may have or not have is voted on by the people or congress?
yes.
Actually incorporation takes place at the state level, so that's where the people should decide.
How would you properly regulate national and international corporations from the state level?
Regulation doesn't have to happen at the state level. Rights should be granted at the state level.
Please take a moment to read the message and avoid knee-jerk emotional responses to the title. Thanks!
Congratulations on this thread! You managed to do the near impossible here...have respectfull discussion of a serious topic. Thank you, I enjoyed reading the responses and will definitely spend some time thinking over the varied points raised.
Thanks!
wait if corporations are people and they are owned by stock/bond holders then that must make them slave owners.
Remove all campaign donations and give set amounts. It would be a start.
Yes public financing, that's the idea.