"Natural persons", a vanishing race?

[vison]

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward Corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394. Some critics of corporate personhood, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. [1] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

Shall we discuss the recent SCOTUS ruling giving corporations the same rights to free speech as "natural persons"?

[Griffon64]

I haven't read a whole lot about it yet, so I'm not sure how I feel about it. My first reaction is "Oh no!" because I don't think business involvement in politics is beneficial for the real people of the country. It is a conflict of interest.

[yovargas]

The "corporate as person" thing is a pretty weird idea. But corporations are still made up of humans, as far as I know (they're not made of cyborgs or sumfin), so the humans in a corporation have the same rights as the humans not in a corporation, philosophically speaking. Philosophically speaking I can't see why they wouldn't have the same rights, except that the practical results may be very unpleasant. But the whole point of rights like freedom of speech is that they can't be denied even if you don't like what peoples do with them.

[JewelSong]

And, now Ladies and Gentleman! We present the President of the United States! Brought to you by McDonald's Corporation! We do it all for you!

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The efficient ways for companies to buy elections and therefore administations in future will be to pour money into swing districts. It's what the Conservative Party does in the UK.
Given the current composition of the Senate and the health bill, I guess Massachusetts is as good an example as any.

Once they have the administrations they want in power it will be a fairly self sustaining process to keep them there. This is the public death blow to representative government in the US. It will take a while to die but unless something is done, Money has won. A pity, the US was a beacon for quite a while.

ETA will the SCOTUS feel comfortable with China or Saudia Arabia or Iran buying elections?

[Cerin]

Philosophically speaking I can't see why they wouldn't have the same rights, except that the practical results may be very unpleasant. But the whole point of rights like freedom of speech is that they can't be denied even if you don't like what peoples do with them.

But the individuals associated with a corporation already have their right of free speech as individuals. It isn't necessary to their right to speak freely, to grant them collective personhood with respect to their financial association. I can't see any sense in it apart from a political agenda. It's like claiming that all of our right to free speech is being infringed because we can't speak collectively as something called HoF.

I think people looking at this country will start to reconsider their assessment of the soundness of the Constitution, as they see the increasing excess it is used to justify. The violence of our country related to unregulated firearms, the dysfunction of our government reflected in our inability to provide for our citizens, and now this slice through the jugular of democracy, all absolutely insane when regarded from the vantage point of common sense and the standards of the rest of the civilized world, are justified by the this document. How good a document can it be if it imprisons us this way? If it can be used to shred the very concepts for which it is supposed to stand?

[Ellienor]

so the humans in a corporation have the same rights as the humans not in a corporation, philosophically speaking. Philosophically speaking I can't see why they wouldn't have the same rights, except that the practical results may be very unpleasant. But the whole point of rights like freedom of speech is that they can't be denied even if you don't like what peoples do with them.

The problem is that corporations allow a very small group to speak with a large bullhorn, disproportionate to the size. If you are upper management of a large corporation, you determine absolutely what your company stands for and what it does (well, the shareholders theoretically have some say, but traditionally don't interfere much), so a very small group gets to determine the "voice" of the corporation. Plus there's the fact that the corporation will have access to vast amounts of money...so a small group speaks with a huge bullhorn.

I think it's really awful. I was very upset for our country last night. We already have enough problems with government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.....this will make things far, far worse.

Who are the representatives going to listen to? The one that provides them with money or will fund nasty, lying attack ads if they don't do their bidding? Or me? Hmmmm, a tough one.

[vison]

Philosophically speaking I can't see why they wouldn't have the same rights, except that the practical results may be very unpleasant. But the whole point of rights like freedom of speech is that they can't be denied even if you don't like what peoples do with them.

But the individuals associated with a corporation already have their right of free speech as individuals. It isn't necessary to their right to speak freely, to grant them collective personhood with respect to their financial association. I can't see any sense in it apart from a political agenda. It's like claiming that all of our right to free speech is being infringed because we can't speak collectively as something called HoF.

I think people looking at this country will start to reconsider their assessment of the soundness of the Constitution, as they see the increasing excess it is used to justify. The violence of our country related to unregulated firearms, the dysfunction of our government reflected in our inability to provide for our citizens, and now this slice through the jugular of democracy, all absolutely insane when regarded from the vantage point of common sense and the standards of the rest of the civilized world, are justified by the this document. How good a document can it be if it imprisons us this way? If it can be used to shred the very concepts for which it is supposed to stand?

Excellent points, Cerin.

The persons who own the corporations already have the rights granted to persons under the US constitution. Now they are given a separate and more powerful "right".

I think the SCOTUS has made a grave error and the effects could be detrimental to the US.

The only "up" side to the situation at present is that with the proliferation of alternate media large corporations cannot control the message everywhere. Unless Murdoch succeeds in his quest, of course.

As the quote I provided shows, the concept of " corporate personhood" was flawed from the getgo. Too bad it was never dealt with before.

[Ellienor]

Corporate personhood is one of those "legal fictions" that get you out of tricky spots, like trying to enforce contracts that were entered into by a "corporation." The Constitution was written before the industrial age and doesn't really fit in many circumstances. Cerin makes good points.

The Constitution fits a small nation of farmer-owners with slaves. That was all the Founders were able to envision, because, they were men of their times.

[axordil]

Fundamental differences between people and corporations the majority of SCOTUS seems to be blissfully unaware of:

A--Corporations don't have a natural lifespan or an estate tax to prevent the establishment of a permanent aristocracy.
B--People can't be owned at all, much less owned by foreign agents or outright by foreign governments.

It will be instructive to see how the teabag folks react to this. At least one leader of the movement was interviewed yesterday by the NYT and sounded rightfully dismayed:

Dale Robertson, the founder of TeaParty.org, reacting directly to the Citizens United decision, told blogger Joy Reid that it is a constitutional travesty: "It just allows them to feed the machine. Corporations are not like people. Corporations exist forever, people don't. Our founding fathers never wanted them; these behemoth organizations that never die, so they can collect an insurmountable amount of profit. It puts the people at a tremendous disadvantage."

This could spin out of control in ways the Fascist Five on the court and their backers don't anticipate.

[Cerin]

This could spin out of control in ways the Fascist Five on the court and their backers don't anticipate.

It will be interesting to see if any teabag action develops, since unlike the summer health care festivities which were orchestrated and backed by the conservative elite and promoted by Fox and Limbaugh, the baggers will be running counter to those forces on this one. I guess we'll see how grassroots the movement really is.

[vison]

Well, here is the chance for the Democrats to DO something.

OWN this, people. This could be what bipartisanship MEANS: rallying together for the sake of the people.

[Ellienor]

Interesting SCOTUS turned their back on 100 years plus of Congress trying to put the brakes on corporate/union contributions, Congress recognizing the inherent conflicts of interest and problems that arise in such situations.

This is a situation of conservative "activism" and ignoring Congress, the arm of government most cognizant of the perils of democracy in this situation.

And I don't expect there to be any real fix for this. It's "an earthquake" as I heard one law professor say last night on NPR.

[Ellienor]

OWN this, people. This could be what bipartisanship MEANS: rallying together for the sake of the people.

The point is that we CAN'T, Vison. The SCOTUS had decreed that the first amendment of the constitution requires this result. We can't overrule the will of the Founders.

[Cerin]

I heard someone saying that Supreme Court Justices can be impeached?

I'm with vison on this. I think liberals should join with the teabaggers in demonstrations protesting the court's activism. It could be great chance to take back that movement from the right-wing forces that co-opted it.

[yovargas]

Fundamental differences between people and corporations the majority of SCOTUS seems to be blissfully unaware of:

A--Corporations don't have a natural lifespan or an estate tax to prevent the establishment of a permanent aristocracy.
B--People can't be owned at all, much less owned by foreign agents or outright by foreign governments.

But the people who control corps die and the people who control corps can't be owned. Right? So is this potentially any different then, say, a handful of ultra-rich individuals getting together to buy a ton of network ad time?

I'm having a hard time figuring out why powerful individuals should have a right to free speech but powerful groups of individuals shouldn't.
I find the whole concept rather strange.

OWN this, people. This could be what bipartisanship MEANS: rallying together for the sake of the people.

The point is that we CAN'T, Vison. The SCOTUS had decreed that the first amendment of the constitution requires this result. We can't overrule the will of the Founders.

Technically, we could amend the Bill of Rights.

[Cerin]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why powerful individuals should have a right to free speech but powerful groups of individuals shouldn't.
I find the whole concept rather strange.

The problem is the framing of this as a free speech issue in the first place, which was established in that wretched 1976 decision equating money with speech. Spending money isn't the same thing as speaking, because rich and poor alike can speak, but it isn't the case that rich and poor alike can spend. So the fact that campaign 'speaking' costs so much money means that the right of the poor to 'speak' in this way is abridged. Money does not equal speech. That's the root of this mistake.

[yovargas]

Hmmm, interesting thought. But since many forms of speech require money to occur, isn't regulating that money the same as regulating those forms of speech?

[Frelga]

I'm so livid about this, I can barely type. So I'll just agree with Cerin, Ax; vison and Ellie.

[axordil]

So is this potentially any different then, say, a handful of ultra-rich individuals getting together to buy a ton of network ad time?

It's the streamlined version. Plus, the biggest corporations have far more resources than even the richest individuals. Exxon-Mobil made $44 billion dollars last year, roughly the sum total worth of any of the world's richest people.

For me, though, it comes back to the fact that while individuals have natural and legal limits to how much wealth and power they can accumulate, corporations don't. They also can't be arrested and thrown in jail. In essence, the ruling establishes that they have all the rights, but few of the limits, of real people.

But the people who control corps die and the people who control corps can't be owned. Right?

And those people have rights commensurate with their status. Granting their corporations rights on top of those rights is double-dipping. Multiplicative dipping really, as Ellienor notes.

When the Constitution was written, corporations were rare and mistrusted, due to their history as an instrument by which the English Crown abused the colonists. States could and often did revoke charters of corporations for a variety of reasons.

The notion that they should have a voice in political discourse would have been antithetical to any formulation of government the founders could imagine.