BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy

16 Sep 09 - 04:58 PM (#2724975)
Subject: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not the campaign finance rules that apply to human beings also apply to corporations. This is a rehashing of the question of whether or not corporations are "persons" under the 14 amendment of the Consitution. The SCOTUS never actually ruled that they do, despite the widespread belief that they did, but this fiction has taken on the force of law anyway, and has enabled corporations to become the rulers and masters of the citizenry of this country, with more rights than actual human beings. Here's some background on this subject:

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:10 PM (#2725016)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: wysiwyg

I know several corporations I wish would have had abortions....

~S~

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:13 PM (#2725019)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Lox

The thought of corporations not being bound by the same laws as people is scary.

How many corporation bosses would get away with crimes on the basis that it wasn't them what done it, it was the corporation.

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:24 PM (#2725026)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Amos

The corporation should be bound by at least the laws that bind individuals but more to the question is whether they should have an individual's rights. For example, an individual's right to speak his mind freely is sacrosanct; for a corporation to do so is a falsehood since it is highly improbable the PR office will have unanimous support throughout the corporation. Corporations also wield far larger budgets than individuals by their nature, which means they can become Gorillas Among Citizens.



A

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:25 PM (#2725027)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

The question is whether corporations have the same "inalienable rights" as human beings (as outlined in our Constitution). If they have the same rights, their funding of political activity is protected as "free speech". This creates most of the problems we have in this country that arise from the ability of corporations to essentially buy our elected officials, and to some extent, also our Supreme Court Justices.

As the article I posted says, it flips the relationship that corporations have with our government from being one in which the corporations are subordinate to the government (the will of the people) to being one in which the government (the will of the people) is subordinate to the corporations.

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:42 PM (#2725038)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow

If a company is a person, presumably it must be subject to the same penalties for lawbreaking as ordinary people? Is it really true that conpanies can be sent to jail or executed?

---

16 Sep 09 - 07:30 PM (#2725080)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

They get fined, but they often go into bankruptcy in order to avoid having to pay, in the case of large fines, and then continue with business as usual. But since they own the lawmakers and sometimes the judges, they often only get a slap on the wrist, or they are not held responsible in any way.

But obviously, they don't have all of the same attributes as a human being. They can't vote for president, for instance. That's a big part of the absurdity of the whole thing. But it was a corrupt Supreme Court clerk, and corrupt Supreme Court justices that make it possible for this absurdity to exist in the first place, and to continue.

The 14th amendment was created to protect the recently freed slaves and their descendants. But later on, the people that amendment was enacted in order to protect had their rights taken away from them and no longer had the status of "person", and the corporations were given the status of "person" instead. Only a corrupt system can produce such an outcome.

---

16 Sep 09 - 09:06 PM (#2725132)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Little Hawk

To treat a corporation legally the same as if it were a living human being is ludicrous.

A corporation is potentially immortal, since it has no physical body, but is simply an idea put into legal form. Ideas are capable of living forever. A human being has a physical body, is mortal, and inevitably dies in time...but a corporation lives on and on by replacing its expendable human representatives (the board of directors) with other expendable human representatives.

It has no soul, but people serve it as if if were a living being that could command them.

It has no mind, but they obey it.

It has no body or heart or consciousness, but they let it become their master.

It becomes, in effect, a deathless and meaningless monster created by the ambitions of men whom it outlives and it is served by those men and others who eventually replace them.

Its sole purpose is to profit through competition and thereby enlarge itself. Thus its material appetites are unlimited...and they are not controlled by any form of moral consciousness.

That makes a corporation one of the most dangerous and ammoral artificial lifeforms that could possibly be imagined.

You could say that it's a sort of a Frankenstein monster, but unlike that monster it does not exist in bodily form. Therefore you can't shoot it, burn it, or destroy it through any physical means. You can only go after its human servants....those who work for it.

It is madness to abandon the control of society to the ambitions of these mentally created entities called corporations, which are by their very nature heartless, mindless, and soulless and live only to devoure and enlarge themselves. The corporation has come to serve the same function as a growing cancer does in a human body...and that is to eventually consume and destroy its host.

---

16 Sep 09 - 09:48 PM (#2725152)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

The 14th Amendment, originally a reconstruction amendment after the Civil War, has been extended and enlarged in several ways' i. e. citizenship (citizenship cannot be revoked), and 'due process'.
The latter was applied in 1897 to provide protection to private contracts. The freedom of contracts , however, was negated in 1937.

The Amendment has evolved to follow the developing standards and needs of the people; i. e., in 1880 blacks could no longer be banned from juries, but in 1896 separate but equal facilities were ruled OK; Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) began the reversal of that ruling and in 1974, protection was expanded to cover Hispanics and other groups.
Tha Amendment covers apportionment of representatives, but also was amended effectively by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Corporate Personhood first came to the fore in 1886, dealing with taxation of railroad properties, and the "juristic person". Juristic persons are entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment. A juristic person is a legal entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if they were a single composite individual, or for a single person to have a separate legal identity other than their own- they are not 'human beings,' but may act as persons for certain purposes, such as lawsuits, property ownership and contracts. The concept is found in most legal systems (including England's), throughout the world.

"Only a corrupt system can produce such an outcome" is a nonsensical statment; only ignorance is behind that remark.

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:30 PM (#2725177)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

Where did you hear about this?

Why is this not strictly a freedom of speech issue?

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:34 PM (#2725181)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Little Hawk

You make a good point, Q. The problem isn't that "only a corrupt system can produce such an outcome"...because a non-corrupt system can certainly come up with similar ideas to the present legal status of the corporation.

The problem is that a corrupt system finds very bad ways to misuse a concept such as the corporation.

And that is what has occurred.

A corrupt system can, in fact, ruin any humanly devised arrangement...whether it be the idea of monarchies, the idea of religion, the idea of political parties, the idea of representative democracy or the idea of legal entities termed "corporations".

When the general leadership of a nation fall under the influence of gross corruption (when they are bought out, in other words), then the system...whatever it is...WILL be corrupted.

It is the corruption itself that is the problem.

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM (#2725187)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Corporate Personhood is nevertheless not a part of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. I would suggest that I am not the one is ignorant...


"The Civil War accelerated the growth of manufacturing and the power of the men who owned the corporations. After the war corporations began a campaign to throw off the legal shackles that had held them in check. The systematic bribing of Congress was instituted by Mark Hanna, sugar trust magnate Henry Havemeyer, and Senator Nelson Aldrich and their associates. [Jonathan Shepard Fast and Luzviminda Bartolome Francisco, Conspiracy For Empire, Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907 (Quezon City, Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1985), p. 92-97] Most Supreme Court judges who were appointed were former corporate lawyers.

In 1886 the supreme court justices were Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, Joseph P. Bradley, John M. Harlan, Stanley Matthews, William B. Woods, Samuel Blatchford, Horace Gray, and chief justice Morrison. R. Waite. Never heard of a one of them? These men subjected African Americans to a century of Jim Crow discrimination; they made corporations into a vehicle for the wealthy elite to control the economy and the government; they vastly increased the power of the Supreme Court itself over elected government officials. How quaint they are forgotten names. In all fairness, Justice Harlan dissented from the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision [163 U.S. 537 (1896)], which, as he said, effectively denied the protection of the 14th Amendment to the very group of people (former slaves and their descendants) for whom it was designed."

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:49 PM (#2725193)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Also, "Juristic persons" are not in any way a part of the 14th amendment.

---

16 Sep 09 - 11:07 PM (#2725204)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

By the way, my comment that "only a corrupt system can produce such an outcome" was not only referring to the idea that corporations could have personhood, but rather to the outcome that corporations could be given the status of personhood under a law that was intended to protect the personhood of human beings, while those same human beings were having their personhood denied - especially in light of the fact that juridical personhood and corporate personhood is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court never ruled on it. And it's true that such an outcome could only be produced by a corrupt system.

---

16 Sep 09 - 11:12 PM (#2725207)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Correction: under a Constitutional amendment that was intended to protect the personhood of human beings...

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:52 AM (#2725336)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Little Hawk

Very well covered, Carol. ;-D

It is quite clear that the architects of the Constitution of the USA did not anticipate the rise of certain things that would come in the future, such as...

political parties
multi-national corporations
modern mass media
weapons of mass destruction
massive urbanization in place of a once largely agrarian society
modern transportation systems
enormous loss of natural habitat
etc...

Had they been able to foresee what would happen with all these various things, I think they would have probably worded the Constitution quite differently in some sections, so as to protect future generations of Americans.

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:01 PM (#2725404)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Stilly River Sage

Why is this not strictly a freedom of speech issue?

You have to look to the animal rights issue to find a good push-back to the corporate rights discussion, and to the rights of individuals with diminished capacity.

Humans who are very young and adult humans of diminished capacity may have someone speak for them. Their personhood is not in question, but the right to speak for them comes into play. Who will speak, and are they keeping the best interests of those individuals in mind? You may have seen the woman who thought she could interpret grunts for a brain dead husband years ago, and it was determined that she was simply speaking for herself and her understanding was made up. (This is an old story, it may have been on 60 Minutes long before the Internet). That kind of thing is at question when one speaks for another, are they serving the other individuals or themselves?

In the environmental movement there is a book that came out years ago called Do Trees Have Standing? that fed into the animal rights discussion. When people stand up to speak for non-human persons, or to demand personhood for non-humans, their motivation is in question and the rights they ask to support or fight for are highly subjective.

Corporations with personhood are a different creature. They have that personhood to protect the corporation's individuals from personal loss if the corporation takes a financial or legal hit. The corporation assets may be siezed, but the personal property of the corporation partners is exempt from seizure (though the individual corporate leaders can and do go to prison. This wasn't always the case). This corporate citizen is a sort of super-human personhood.

Free speech rights are what are being examined by the supreme court, in relation to the corporation as a person. But the corporation is usually standing for many actual humans who aren't necessarily of one mind, and if there are investors such as mutual funds, then the money of those individuals may be used in ways that those individuals oppose, in their name.

Newspapers and book publishers (after the 1960 decision around Lady Chatterley's Lover that prohibited the U.S. Post Office from blocking the distribution of print material it found objectionable) are one form of corporation that have free-speech rights from the Bill of Rights. The first ammendment oversees the speech of writers within the publishing corporation as well as the corporation itself.

A PR department of a non-journalistic corporation department is not the same as a publishing corporation, and I think the question will boil down to who is speaking for whom, and who is entitled to speak. The PR speech is sponsored to promote the needs and wishes of the corporation, it is sales speech, not freedom of expression. The sales speech can be examined and punished if it misrepresents an item. The owners of the corporation take a financial hit if there is an action against the corporation. The owners of a business corporation are invested in the production of something, and may not want it to engage in political speech on their behalf. A newspaper can spout off all it wants, be as hateful as can be, but that is free speech and is what those investors expect.

SRS

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:23 PM (#2725419)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Another point that I think is worth pointing out is that while other countries may extend some rights of personhood to "juristic persons", like lawsuits, property ownership and contracts, the governments of those countries do not become subordinate to those juristic persons. In the US, when the 14th amendment is taken to apply to corporations, this gives them far more rights than just those needed for the purpose of making contracts and owning property and things that are directly related to the functioning of their corporations, and include the right to engage in political activity and to have freedom of expression, which puts the government in a subordinate position to the corporation. It's an entirely different situation.

At any rate, since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this question before, it will be interesting to see if they finally do that, or if they, like their predecessors, will continue to kick that can down the road. Since the Court is still largely the same corrupt court that installed Bush in power in 2000, I don't hold out much hope.

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:32 PM (#2725428)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Stilly River Sage

Let's hope they surprise us with their common sense.

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:38 PM (#2725433)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: John P

Wouldn't it be nice if corporations who knowingly take actions that kill people were put to death? All assets taken away, all investors out in the cold. Do that to a few large corporations, and investors would start demanding ethical behavior instead of profits at all costs.

Corporations are, by their nature, immoral. Their only reason for their existence is to produce money for investors. If some CEO started acting ethically instead of profitably, they would be out of a job in a nanosecond and some less ethical person would be making the profitable decisions.

Until the owners of corporations start getting hit big time for the sins of their organizations, there is no reason to expect them to act like real people.

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:42 PM (#2725436)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: heric

Already said above but with slightly different wording:

The sentient individuals who act in multiple ways through and with a coporation have inalienable rights to free speech. Most of them will have no realistic way to resist the power of the mob which is the larger bulk of the people (with varying degress of authority and discretion) in this legally manufactured "entity" that exists only under the laws created to allow the concerted efforts of all these people to function in certain multple ways. People delegate much of their authority to the corporate "leaders," i.e. directors who might re-delegate to executives, but if you do not constrain the corporate "rights," you will be impinging upon the free speech rights of individuals. Can an individual delegate free speech rights to others, even in advance of knowing what the words will be? Would an individual ever choose to do so? Some would, some wouldn't.

Constituional rights of individuals require constraints on the "rights" of a group.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:11 PM (#2725601)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

Stilly River Sage

A well reasoned argument. This will be the central issue in which Abrams will be arguing on behalf of Corporate Free Speech before the high court this coming week.


I wrote 500 words on the probable situations that would occur should the corporate plantif wins. The billion dollar movies against certain candidates will become a new phenomenon.
Perhaps my hypotheticals confused some readers here if they did not see I was speaking about fictional possibilities.





The problem I have is that when I clik on my name I no longer get a list of my posts !!!!!!!!!

This index was the best thing about this forum.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:13 PM (#2725602)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

The 14th Amendment is long and complicated , comprising many court decisions, covering everything from birth to death (decisions affecting abortion, right to die, and all the rights throughout life, for persons and institutions.

From the Constitution, Government Printing Office
Fourteenth Amendment - http://www/gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf


"Person"
Perhaps the first inclusion of corporations was in 1877, when it became clear that ..."there is no doubt that a corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law (41). While various decisions have held that the "liberty" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the liberty of natural(42) not artificial persons,(43) nevertheless in 1936, a newspaper corporation successfully objected that a state law deprived it of liberty of the press.(44)"
( ) are footnotes with titles of cases.

Deisions of the Courts, from the 1880s on, corrected the damaging excesses of reconstruction, and, in two steps forward-one step back decisions, slowly paved the way for blacks and other minorities to enter into full citizenship.
This is just one part of the current Fourteenth Amendment, which now covers many items. The Courts reflect public opinion; radical reforms would cause public resistance and the disruption of governmental controls.

Calling any of the Courts 'corrupt' is left wing nut demagogery. The Courts' record is one of service throughout.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:37 PM (#2725621)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Yes, I definitely agree that the Court's record is one of service, but it has often been service to narrow, vested interest groups rather than the Constitution. When it is difficult to see the separation between the members of the court and the people or groups about whom they are giving favorable rulings, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the court is corrupt, and to suggest otherwise is extremely blinkered.

While precedent has been built on the notion that the 14th amendment applies to corporations, there has never been a Supreme Court ruling on it. So the question persists and has not been settled. Maybe it will be this time, and maybe not.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:41 PM (#2725622)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Cornell University Law School-
U. S. Code collection

Section 1. Words denoting number, gender and so forth-
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-
"words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
............

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
..............

Based on numerous lower court decisions and thus taught as covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM (#2725627)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Nevertheless, it has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court, so the question has not been settled.

Since the link provided by the above poster doesn't take people to the text of the 14th amendment, here it is...

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:54 PM (#2725634)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Supreme Court actions may define the boundaries of corporate and union 'personhood,' as well as of other groupings, but the basic rights of these 'juristic' persons seems well established.

Also involved here are Class Action Suits, where a group are acting as a person before the courts.

---

17 Sep 09 - 05:55 PM (#2725637)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Since the part about not being denied life, liberty, or property, or equal protection of the laws is specifically stated as the right of persons born or naturalized in the US, and since corporations cannot be either, it's pretty obvious that the people who wrote and voted on this amendment intended for these rights as outlined in the 14th amendment to apply to human beings and not corporations.

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:00 PM (#2725642)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

One of the functions of the Supreme Court is to determine whether precedent set by lower courts is Constitutional, and if it isn't, then the Court renders the precedent invalid. If and when the Court ever actually rules on the question, we will see then whether or not any of the established precedent will stand. If they rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to corporations, which they have the power to do, then all of the legal precedent that has given corporations the same rights as human beings under the 14th amendment in the past will become null and void.

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:14 PM (#2725652)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO

Carol C said:

But obviously, they don't have all of the same attributes as a human being. They can't vote for president, for instance. That's a big part of the absurdity of the whole thing. But it was a corrupt Supreme Court clerk, and corrupt Supreme Court justices that make it possible for this absurdity to exist in the first place, and to continue.

I'm not quarreling with your judgment, "corrupt", which you are entitled to make, I suppose, but you tell us that last positively, as a fact, and accordingly I assume you know some specific incident(s) that establishes that, which evidently I've missed.   Would you please give us the chapter and verse?

Dave Oesterreich

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:16 PM (#2725658)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: curmudgeon

"Never ascribe to malice that which is more simply explained by stupidity."

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:18 PM (#2725660)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

I already posted a specific incident.

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:54 PM (#2725684)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow

"Corrupt" has several meanings. One of them is "influenced by bribery", and that would be a charge that needs the kind of specific incident which Dave Oesterreich asked for.

However another meaning is just "rotten", and that is an epithet that is perhaps a lot easier to justify.

---

17 Sep 09 - 06:55 PM (#2725685)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO

I missed it. What date and time, please, Carol C?

Dave Oesterreich

---

17 Sep 09 - 07:47 PM (#2725710)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D

One of the talk programs (Olbermann? Maddow?) mentioned a few days ago, that AFTER some decision, one of the Justices..(chief justice?) was talking and said...(paraphrased) "We didn't really deal with the issue of the 'person' status of corporations ...though we just assume that they have it...."

and supposedly, a clerk overheard and wrote down his remark and passed it off as part of the decision......something like that. And it has been taken for granted ever since.
It was so weird that on the program, it was asked again...

I never did hear exactly who & when this was supposed to have occurred

---

17 Sep 09 - 07:55 PM (#2725711)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D

Ok...look here...and scroll down to 2nd section.

---

17 Sep 09 - 08:37 PM (#2725730)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Little Hawk

Fascinating stuff, Bill! It sure puts a different face on the events in Boston that led to the American Revolution.

---

17 Sep 09 - 08:46 PM (#2725735)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

16 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM


To me, particularly in this context, corruption is when public officials make decisions that favor groups that they have personal connections with (which could be financial in nature or could be of other kinds) because of those connections rather than making their decisions based on a neutral assessment of their responsibilities under their job description.

The case I have been referencing in this thread is the same one that was referenced on the show (I think it was Maddow, but I can't remember, either). The link in my first post goes into some detail about the case.

---

17 Sep 09 - 08:47 PM (#2725737)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert

First of all, it is a given tha the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Court will see fit to strike down over a hundred years of precedence... That is a given becuase they are all corporate puppets...

But the best argument against alolowing corporation to buy up as much advertsing time and to put out whatever lies they want to in the forms of faike documentaries is simple: Corporations trade on a stock exchange and every stock holder owns a share of that corporation... Now when the Board of Directors, or the CEO decide to use money form a publicly (stock holders) owned corporation run ads they are, in essence, saying that the represent to the feelings of every stock holder, or if not, that some kind of vote were taken and those who do not agree with the ad lost some kinda of vote...

That is bullshit!!!

I mean, let'as step into the real world here... Lotta folks have 401's, right... They don't sit at their computers everyday and buy and sell stocks... No, most don't really have much of a clue about the affairs of the corporations in which they own stock...

Everyone with us so far...

Well, should a corporation buy an ad without the full knowledge to the owners of the stocks then it would seem to me that that corporation is guilty of hoodwinking their investers... I think the term racketeering is what it's called....

So, bottom line, when Robert's Boys give a green light to their corporate bed-buddies they are in essence giving a green light for these folks to be exempted from the law...

Real pickle, ain't it???

But it is going to happen by the activists Roberts Court...

Might of fact, before these activist assholes are reigned in they are going to shread as much precedence as they can find to shread on any issue that comes before them that makes the right wing all warm and fuzzy...

B~

---

17 Sep 09 - 09:03 PM (#2725744)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO

Bobert, when you said:


First of all, it is a given tha the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Court will see fit to strike down over a hundred years of precedence... That is a given becuase they are all corporate puppets...

I think you meant to insert "not" before "see fit".

Not striking down all those years of judicial tradition may be seen as serving corporations. To "strike down over a hundred years of precedence" would be to strike a real blow to corporations.

Dave Oesterreich

---

17 Sep 09 - 09:28 PM (#2725750)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert

No, Dave, I got it right... Roberts and Co will strike down over a hundred years of precedence...

Congresss enacted a law (name escapes me) in 1906 that limited corporations for buying power in the government... Courts have upheld that law ever since... (The cat will come to me... Brain fade)...

So everytime the act has been reviewed the courts have upheld it... I reckon that those decsions are what would be thought of as precedents...

Roberts and gang are about to interpret this 103 year old act, whioch has been uphelp for over a century and they are going to, in essence, say that every time the courts have upheld that those courts were wrong...

Seems to me that that amounts to striking down those decisions...

What am I missing here???

B~

---

17 Sep 09 - 09:32 PM (#2725752)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

The rights of companies, associations inc. unions, firms, funds, partnerships, societies, joint stock companies, class action groups to act as a person in procedings will not be overturned. These rights are ingrained in the democratic process.

Limits may be imposed to prevent excesses and define boundaries, but the right of a group to act as a person are based on too many decisions and actions since the 1877 decisions (regarding a newspaper) mentioned previously and the Munn vs. Illinois case allowing the public (a state governing body operating as a person) regulation of private business,and the 1888 ruling allowing taxation of railroads (not resting on some 'remark'). These and other decisions are the basis of the 'legal person'.

When the Amendment was ratified in 1868, the concern was reconstruction; as it now stands it covers many aspects of personal and business life, and the current edition linked at the Government Printing Office fills a volume (not considering additions since 2002).

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:17 PM (#2725767)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Nobody's arguing whether or not they will be able to act as persons in matters pertaining directly to the conduct of their business. There is nothing whatever in any of my posts that even hints at that. So that's a straw man argument.

What is being discussed is whether or not they have the same exact rights as a human being under the 14th amendment, including freedom of speech (in the form of money spent on political campaigns), and things that aren't directly related to conducting their business.

What this decision would do, if the court finds that the 14th amendment does not apply to corporations, is that it will affirm the right of the government to place limits on what corporations can and can't do, in this case, what they can do with regard to political activity.

When the amendment was ratified, the concern was that the newly freed slaves might still be denied equal rights under the law.

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:20 PM (#2725770)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D

Ok...with the results of my previous search in hand, I added "Santa Clara" to the search terms, and I find that Wikipedia names names


"However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:

    "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[3]

This quotation was printed by the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former president of a small railroad, in the syllabus and case history above the opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[4] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements."

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:29 PM (#2725775)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Alternatively, the above poster could have read the opening post in this thread, and had a look in the link posted in it.

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:53 PM (#2725783)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

The rights of corporations- and all such groups- are, in the opinion of legal students, covered by the 14th Amendment and have been for over a century. Within that Amendment, limits may be placed on what those bodies may do; if it is ruled that contributions by them should be limited, the same limitations would undoubtedly be placed on unions, societies, action groups, etc.

The original intent when it was ratified has little to do with the current content or intent of the much enlarged and modified Amendment; the vengeful reconstruction provisions may have been intended to protect freed slaves, but they imposed conditions on the South that caused rancor and blocked industrial development, causing hardship to both blacks and whites, factors that slowed integration for many years.

---

17 Sep 09 - 11:13 PM (#2725793)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Nevertheless, it is the Supreme Court, and not most legal students, who will have the final say on whether or not the 14th amendment will apply to corporations.

The text of the 14th amendment, that I posted above, was written for the purpose of ensuring that freed slaves and their descendants would not be denied the same rights as White people (well, White men, anyway). That was the only purpose of that amendment. That was the whole reason it was written.

---

17 Sep 09 - 11:15 PM (#2725795)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

The court didn't actually rule on the Santa Clara case.

---

18 Sep 09 - 12:18 PM (#2726076)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D

"Alternatively, the above poster could have read the opening post in this thread, and had a look in the link posted in it.

Didn't the author of that post not too long ago make some point about "not having time to read all the posts..? (even posts two lines above)

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM (#2726121)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Well, I don't think I ever said I don't read the opening posts.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM (#2726124)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

The posts pretty well cover the point of contention; the Supreme Court, if they take on the case, will make a decision.

The original intent and content of the Fourteenth Amendment has been revised and many sections about life and rights for all citizens have been added.

As noted previously, the document now is quite long, with decisions covering citizens from birth to death, with many footnotes on decisions and Court cases. The original 1868 Amendment is meaningless without the cargo of decisions made by the Court in cases up to the present. The original content quoted by Carol C. is incomplete; clauses dealing with the Confederacy and some other matters are omitted.

The California case and its 'obiter dictum' was only one of several cases involving action by a group or business, as noted in previous posts. Subsequent decisions by the Court has added to the validity of the 'juristic' person, and will not now be reversed, but limits may be defined in subsequent cases.

Read it at the GPO website; there is no practical way to post its content in this thread. It is a 1.1M pdf. (www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf- This copy does not include decisions added 2002-2008).

Fourteenth Amendment

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:44 PM (#2726136)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D

"Well, I don't think I ever said I don't read the opening posts."

I'm sure you didn't..... *wry grin*

(You are hard to agree with...even when we are the same side of an issue.) Let's just agree that the road to Corporate Personhood had some pretty convoluted and sleazy twists & turns. It needs to be re-paved.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM (#2726141)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Also see 2004 additions to Fourteenth Amendment, dealing with 'due process', Equal protection, and an act of Congress declared unconstitutional, state laws unconstitutional, etc.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2004supplement.pdf

Also pdf on 2006 and 2008 additions.
Note- the ALCU is one of the bodies acting as a 'person' in suits and cases invilving the First and other Amendments.

2008 cases involved due process, Federal and state laws ruled unconstitutional, etc.

---

18 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM (#2726149)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow

Surely decisions subsequently made by the Supreme Court are not part of an amendment, and are not binding in the same way. Can't the court at a later date decide that a decision it previously made was simply wrong?

---

18 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM (#2726161)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Checking the Supreme Court Docket, there is no case pending that will change the current interpretation.

Many cases pending are by groups- corporations, state agencies, Parents vs. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, etc. Most will be referred back.

---

18 Sep 09 - 02:19 PM (#2726165)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

Regardless of the lower court decisions that have been made on the subject since the ratification of the 14th amendment, it is the Supreme Court that can determine whether or not they will stand.

Just think about all of the legal precedent that had accumulated around the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" (for instance, the Plessy vs Ferguson case) over the span of almost a hundred years, and the Supreme Court wiped it all out in its Brown vs the Board of Education decision.

It has happened before, it can happen again, and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't understand the Constitution of the United States, or the Supreme Court.

---

18 Sep 09 - 02:22 PM (#2726167)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

There is a case coming up in which the Supreme Court will rule whether or not the use of money for political purposes is covered as free speech under the 14th amendment for corporations.

The question of whether or not the 14th amendment applies to corporations could very well be a part of the discussion and the decision the court makes in this case. There is no guarantee that it will, but it certainly could.

---

18 Sep 09 - 03:15 PM (#2726209)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert

Funny thing is that it's a right winged group that is bringing the current case because they were forbidden to air a phoney-baloney documentary on Hillary Clinton...

But I agree with Sawz on this one in that I don't want corporations to have the same power to express themselves as individuals just becasue the corporations have the money to do so... I don't wnat the Swifboat Liars doing it and I don't want Move on doing it and I don't want Blackwater, Halliburton of General Electric doing it... This wasn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind here, folk...

B~

---

18 Sep 09 - 03:34 PM (#2726218)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee is the case Carol C. refers to, I believe.
Do corporations have a right to speak on political questions?

One argument to be presented is that corporations are individuals under the constitution, and should be able to express their views.

Soliciter General Elena Kagan is expected to argue that U. S. election law has been built on the notion that corporations and unions cannot use their general fund to defeat a candidate because the individual shareolders and union members may not want their money spent that way, and because the large amount of money would skew and corrupt the system.
Mostly quoted from-

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/july-dec09/scotus_09-09.html

It will be an interesting case.

---

18 Sep 09 - 05:21 PM (#2726291)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

"What the founding fathers had in mind" is pretty out of date.
Some were slave holders, most believed that only property holders should vote and hold office, women should be obedient to their husbands, etc.
Most of them just wanted to get shot of Britain, as the expression has it.
They had a lot of fun confiscating 'loyalist' property, too.

---

18 Sep 09 - 06:41 PM (#2726337)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert

Well, given the powers of the King, Q, it really isn't all that much out of date... The idea was to spread power and authority around...
And it was the spreading of power and authority around that eventually brought an end of slavery...

B~

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:30 PM (#2726467)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

Its not about personhood, it's about free speech. The personhood ship has sailed.
This case may roll forward the rights of corporations to influence any or all elections but it will not consider rolling back any such privileges of personhood to any mega corporation.    The question of personhood and human rights status for corporations has already been established for the purposes of economic profitability unencumbered by personal liability. This case can only expand corporate freedoms. The court is not hearing this case to reduce them.
So in my opinion the question of trying to redefine corporate personhood is moot.

Certainly participating in elections for the purpose of representation in the government is an economic concern for corporations.

Just because we may not trust corporations or have a bad feeling about them is not reason enough to deny them free speech. It would be unconstitutional to deny Carol or Little Hawk freedom of speech simply because we don't like the look in their eye.






Now if I were to argue against corporate freedom of speech particularly in all US elections I would consider these arguments;

Exactly what and who is the corporate voice?
The CEO will be the person deciding how speech/money is spent without the stock holders knowing a thing. If we assume the CEO is speaking with a shared intent of the shareholders all is fine and dandy.    A foreign or domestic CEO does not have to tell the shareholders a word. So the question of who is the true voice of the corporation has a large role to play in this case.


Most importantly…:
If the CEO of a multinational corporation supports a legal candidate with $47 Billion, could we ignore the election laws that prevent foreign nationals or foreign companies from giving money to US candidates.
Now consider a rogue American CEO of a corporation like Wal-Mart doing half of its business in China deciding to voice his or her free speech/money against the will of shareholders and the Untied States. Suppose the candidate funded by the corporate CEO intends to cause serious harm to the United States for the profitability of the corporation, there is nothing we can do to stop her or him from doing so, just as we have seen Enron, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide Mortgage and AIG do.   



The main issue is that of preserving democracy and democratic elections. Does giving unlimited economic power to one specific candidate help preserve democracy? Should we define unlimited economic advantage as free speech?


now Justice Roberts, go decide.

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:42 PM (#2726474)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

But denying corporations freedom of speech is in no way the same thing as denying individuals free speech. Each person making up a corporation has the same right of free speech as every other individual in this country. Corporations, because of their collective power and resources, have an unfair advantage over individuals, so granting them the right of free speech essentially has the effect of denying individuals the right of free speech, because large and powerful corporations have the ability to determine what messages get heard and which ones don't.

But I agree that with the court we have now, it would take a miracle to get an outcome that is good for democracy.

---

19 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM (#2726692)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Justice Sotomayor will be in on this one. I look forward to seeing her written opinion, regardless of her stance.

Would you deny joint action to the ALCU, class action suits, societies, unions, etc.?
All of these groups have a right to pursue their perceptions of justice and legal procedure and have them protected.

---

19 Sep 09 - 01:38 PM (#2726707)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC

If there were limits on how large corporations could use their money in political campaigns, I wouldn't have a problem with putting limits on how other groups use their money in political campaigns. As long as the playing field was level and no one had an unfair advantage. There's way too much money in our political process anyway. It's destroying democracy in this country.

---

19 Sep 09 - 03:22 PM (#2726777)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

"way too much money..." Unfortunately true.

Over $6 billion was spent in the 2008 federal campaign, some $1 billion from corporate action committees, unions and trade associations and lobbyists." Reuters, Sept. 9. 2009.

The spectacle of candidates having fund-raisers following the primaries and elections in order to pay campaign costs is sad.

Canada allows income tax deductions for individuals, thus allowing people to participate, but there is NO limit to individual, corporate, union or other organizational donation.

---

19 Sep 09 - 03:35 PM (#2726790)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Stringsinger

Carol, we have had corporate personhood for some time already.

An insightful view of this issue can be found in Thom Hartmann's book "Unequal Protection". C. Bankroft Davis, a court clerk through a default was the one who
actually started the precedence of corporate personhood.

The film, "The Corporation" deals with this issue succinctly. The "corporate person"
is a psychotic entity that should be given very little rights for the safety of the public.

Frank

---

21 Sep 09 - 04:38 PM (#2728320)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

There are exactly 50 friends of the court in this case siding against corporate free speech as it pertains to elections.

The ACLU AND the NRA are on the same side in this case.

---

21 Sep 09 - 04:44 PM (#2728325)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

previously posted hypothetical if the corporations win this case:

The year is 2011 and our election is being held with twitchy armed National Guard on duty in 28 States due to the shootings of "Democrat" candidates and the attempted assignations of Barack Obama. Some pundits agree that three full length movies released in September are at the heart of the horrible violence.
The first movie released was 'The Kenyan Candidate' followed by 'The Need to Know'.
The Barak Obama film portrayed a violent rape of a Wesleyan co ed by a young Mr. Obama and "The Need to Know" movie explored the 'above top secret' defusing of nuclear weapons in seven different states under the executive supervision of Richard Cheney.

A smaller feature called 'Only a Mother's Strength' is the inside story of Sarah Palin's experience at top level briefings in national security policy meeting deep within the Pentagon and her actions during her European trip in 2007. It shows her learning the secret struggle against the emerging evil that plans for the destruction of the great Satan, the United States. The most dynamic scene portrayed Sarah Palin striking fear into the heart of then president of Pakistan Mussarev by showing him the spread pattern of 50 US multiple warhead nukes and their overlapping blast zones covering his entire country.   

All the movies were produced, funded and distributed by the following Corporations: Pfizer, Bank of America, Exon, United Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Squib, Johnson and Johnson, Fox networks, Peabody Energy, Lockheed, Black Water and others.

In November the Cheney Palin ticket wins in a landslide losing only 25 electoral votes.


How could this happen? How could this happen? True, Americans are highly gullible with short memories. This could happen because the Supreme Court can rule that Corporations not only have free speech rights via the press and political action committees, but also have the free speech to pay for, produce and distribute full length films to promote candidates of their choice. Unions however were not granted this special free speech provision. Essentially the McCain Feingold campaign reform had been found unconstitutional and the 100 year precedent of limiting the Corporate financing of political elections was now completely unregulated. The $85 billion profit of Exon alone contributed two billion dollars to their new found freedom of speech.

During confirmation hearling Judge Roberts said that over turning a long standing prededent would require unusual proof and would never be taken lightly.

We will see.

---

21 Sep 09 - 04:50 PM (#2728330)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel

My favorite part of the movie 'Kenyan Candidate' was the part about Obama being arrested on suspicion of felony trafficking in children but the charges and records disappeared after an Indonesian millionaire Mullah gor involved.

---

21 Sep 09 - 08:13 PM (#2728474)
Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Just what is this case "against corporate free speech as it pertains to elections"?

And both the ALCU and the NRA have acted as persons in suits they have filed.

---