Ending Corporate Personhood
From a Daily Kos Diary:
An 1886 Supreme Court clerk’s headnotes misreading (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad) applied the 14th Amendment to corporations, extending to them all the rights, but none of the responsibilities, of human persons. The result has been the steady erosion of our democracy since then, and the consequent rise of the corporate state, which is primarily responsible for the military-corporate-media-academic complex, the expansion of the often brutal U.S. global empire (including the IMF, WTO, and World Bank) with its protecting militarism, and the destruction of our only planet’s environment, all in the service of corporate capital’s endless lust for power and profits. Corporate personhood is at the core of all of our problems. Ending it is the start of the way back to humane civilization.
Indeed. The time has come to end this double standard. If corporations want the protection of the Constitution they must also assume the responsibilities citizens must endure. Like, if I somehow killed all Republicans, I would be guilty of mass murder and would be tried, convicted and executed. In 1984, a Union Carbide subsidiary released 42 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas in Bhopal, India. At least 520,000 people were exposed to toxic gases, and at least 11,000 people died from that exposure within two weeks. You can argue whether the release of gases was intentional or not, but we still jail people for unintentional murder, i.e. manslaughter. Can you jail a corporation? No, but you can take all of its assets for public use, and fine or imprison all of their megarich executives.
Word.
One of the worst SCOTUS decisions evaaarrr.
the movie/documentary “The Corporation” is a must watch.
the corporation mentality has seeped into our culture and more specifically into our elected officials and CEO’s minds.
Business do need a legal structure such as the corporation, and business owners should receive some protection from risk (but not as much as they are currently receiving). That much is necessary in order to harness the forces of capitalism for the good of society.
That said, the concept of “corporate personhood” is probably the worst possible way to deliver those protections. Because “persons” have all the enumerated as well as the un-enumerated rights of the Constitution.
Better for the government to grant a public charter to businesses with enumerated terms.
Realistically, it is not likely that the personhood concept will be overturned. It would be more pragmatic to close loopholes and push for specific reforms. For example, defining criminal penalties for corporate officers, and punching bigger holes in the corporate veil in the event of corporate bankruptcies and torts against corporations.
Without corporate personhood, corporations would not be guaranteed due process of law. Would you want the legislature to be able to simply take part of a corporation or seize control of it or do whatever simply by fiat? Would you want governors to be able to order corporations around without being restricted by the law?
Oh, wait, this is a liberal blog, so yeah, y’all probably would want that.
Dana: Show us, please, a situation in which what you fret about ever happened.
anon wrote:
So, which rights would you deny to corporations? Freedom of speech or the press? The right to trial by jury? The right to face its accusers? The right to property? The right to be safe from unlawful sarches and seizures? The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
If you think that corporations ought not to have the rights of a legal person, you should be able to tell us which rights you’d restrict.
they don’t have all the penalties that a HUMAN has Dana.
The incident in Bhopal didn’t occur in the United States; it occurred in India, and was subject to Indian law.
Dana, I am not against corporate personhood. I can understand the need for it, specifically for taxation purposes and due process of law. The problem I have is that they get all benefits and suffer none of the burdens.
If a corporation commits a crime, it should be subjected to prosecution and punishment. A corporation should receive tax breaks that an ordinary citizen does not enjoy.
You want special consideration for corporations. You want them to receive preferred status over normal everyday citizens.
Dana…
If it did occur in the United States, your position is that nothing should happen to the corporation. You would just say “accidents happen” and fight any and all attempts to compensate the victims or punish the corporation.
Would you want the legislature to be able to simply take part of a corporation or seize control of it or do whatever simply by fiat? Would you want governors to be able to order corporations around without being restricted by the law?
God forbid a President should ever be able to seize control of an individual by fiat and do whatever he wants to him without being restricted by the law.
LOL.
If a corporation commits a crime, it should be subjected to prosecution and punishment.
I disagree…. we already have criminal laws that hold individuals accountable for crimes.
As far as I know, existing criminal law has the power, for example, to examine the structure of Union Carbide, determine where responsibility lies, and assign criminal responsibility.
All that is lacking is the will to do so.
We have in fact prosecuted individuals (i.e., Enron). But unlike street criminals, corporate criminals are lawyered up. Plus, they are part of the Establishment which has little will to follow through.
The decision whether or not to pursue a high-profile prosecution is unfortunately usually a political decision.
Dana: You misunderstand the situation. The things you are worried about never happened before the 1886 decision. The principal difference is that, previous to that decision, corporations were formed for a specific purpose (not simply profit by whatever means) and their charters ended whenever that purpose was achieved.
Instead of worrying about your precious corporations, why don’t you take a look at all the loopholes they allow, and think about a world in which, oh, a crooked builder couldn’t form a new LLP with every project so that when he rips off homebuyers, they can’t come after him. Or an oil refinery couldn’t stall in court, effectively forever, instead of installing pollution-control equipment.
The theoretical situations you present show an utter lack of understanding of the real world, as opposed to the precious little Randian universe that exists nowhere but in your head.
No, but you can take all of its assets for public use, and fine or imprison all of their megarich executives.
Can we stop with the “megarich executives” stereotyping? Most corporations are small and most corporate “executives” are not “megarich”. Corporations do create jobs and require the owners to take risks. Most corporations fail.
I don’t think that corporations should have the same rights as citizens, yes, including freedom of speech. Corporations need certain legal protections but they are not human beings and should not be treated as such.
Dana might enjoy living under a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations but I don’t think that is what our founders intended.
Negligent homicide has the same results whether committed by a Corp or an individual….someone is dead that shouldn’t be…
What real and fair disincentive is there if a Corp can just pay a massive judgment while a person pays with 15 to 25 years? Yeah, the Corp may go out of business or file chapter 11, but the larger ones will survive. Can I buy insurance to pay for my crimes? No….I guess not.
Plus, and this is my major issue….Corps don’t necessarily die…people do. So a successful Corp can be around, theoretically, forever, and gain more and more capital (read: power).
Here ya go, Dana, for starters:
List of rights corporations should not have:
– Freedom of speech
– Right to bear arms (bare arms are OK)
– Full fourth amendment protections against searches (there needs to be searches and audits by regulatory agencies)
anon the problem with you disagreeing is the fact that one can hide behind a corporation to avoid being penalized personally. it is the reason that people incorporate in the first place.
Oh, and the right to vote
anon the problem with you disagreeing is the fact that one can hide behind a corporation to avoid being penalized personally.
This is true for civil but not criminal liability. The concept of the corporate veil protects officers from most financial liability, but does nothing to protect you from criminal liability. Maybe DD can confirm this?
Except of course that in the real world, even though officers are not legally protected from criminal liability, they acquire enough money and enough juice that they are treated as though they are exempt from criminal liability. When a crime occurs, law enforcement often does not have the will to prosecute.
Corporations do create jobs
Jobs existed before corporations.
The corporation is simply one mechanism we use for organizing commercial activity including labor. It doesn’t have to be that way.
The intent was to protect corporations and individuals from risk in the normal operations of a business. Like most things today, it has been brutally corrupted as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for the INDIVIDUALS who are blatantly misfeasant and malfeasant. I heartily support the changing of that law to hold people hiding behind a corporate veil accountable for all economic and physical pain brought on by their actions…….
FYI the Kos got it wrong; the assignment of 14th Amendment personhood rights to corporations was not due to any error (nice urban rumor, that), but to the continued activism of Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, who built multiple majorities and wrote their opinions for more than a decade. See McCloskey, Conservatism in the Age of Enterprise.
“The Kos?” Markos did not write that, but rather another diarist.
Sorry, should have been more specific with the reference
On jobs: No business, whether corporate or individually owned, “creates” jobs. They hire people only when it will lead to increased profits. If they can find a machine to do it instead, they certainly will, for our business laws allow them to depreciate the cost of a machine, but not an employee.
I’m not against corporations having the rights of citizens but I am against corporations not having the responsibility of citizens. I’m still really peeved that Goldman Sachs got a bailout from the U.S. government but only paid 1% tax. That 35% corporate tax may be on the books but only corporations without smart lawyers and accountants pay that amount of tax. I’m certainly not against lowering that rate, as long as we close any and all loopholes. No more incorporating in the Bahamas or Dubai to avoid U.S. tax.
Also, I think foreign corporations, like Halliburton which is now a Dubai-based corporation should be prohibited from having U.S. government contracts. The U.S. government should be protecting U.S. citizens first.
Bob, your wife refused to act on the duPont dioxin pile in her district. She passed the buck on asking DNREC and duPont to take responsibility for the Edgemore flood-plain toxic dump.
Is there anything she wants to say? Maybe even just I am sorry?
Anon, please remain anon because on that issue you are dead wrong. I did not, and do not, want that pile touched until it is VERIFIED that disturbing it is less dangerous than leaving it alone (OK, you can dig it up when I’m living 1900 miles away ). You, and your self-annointed, quasi scientists can have your opinion, but that’s mine. I prefer facts and data from an unbiased source before I act on something potentially dangerous. So how about this – instead of an appology, since she is no longer an elected official, I can say what I want now – STFU about something you are not qualified to give an answer to…….
Diana McWilliams passed the buck.
Your reaction confirms the cowardice behind her non-action.
There isn’t much more dangerous place for toxic poisons than in an unsecured pit on the river. Or maybe the McWilliams don’t believe in global warming either?
The people picked a Republican with a background in environment to replace her for a reason.
Anon Dude, Check asbetos for a quick refresher on a toxic substance that needs to be left alone and not indiscriminately disturbed.
Quasi “progressive’ or “liberal’ or whatever you call yourself makes me puke. You have self annointed yourself as the holder of all answers. So go for it. You are the reason Democrats often lose elections to people (like Bush/Cheney) who end up raping our forests and monutains and oceans. No pun intended, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
BTW, again you apparently know nothing of which you speak, but the Republican that won only won by 73 votes in an election where turnout was so poor it would shame an American Idol vote. But most importantly, he is a corporate lawyer who is leading the team to get the BP loading dock in New Jersey. I hope your wonderful faith in his environmental defense does not send a fireball your way someday…….
Perhaps the locals were running the plant and were not of the skill levels required.
Not asbestos.
http://www.tectn.org/green_delaware_alert_540.htm
DuPont accumulated a giant pile of dangerous wastes near the banks of the Delaware River and Shellpot Creek in the City of Wilmington, Delaware. The pile was accumulated between 1997 and 2001 and contains about 420 thousand cubic yards (550 thousand tons) of wastes. Originally it covered 23 acres but in 2001 it was bulldozed up into a higher pile covering 16 acres and goop (“polymer coat”) was sprayed on it to reduce dust blowing.
the wastes, which DuPont calls “Iron Rich,” contains dioxins, PCB’s, arsenic, radioactive uranium and thorium, hexachlorobenzene, and many other toxic and cancer-causing chemicals. Only a few of these were considered in the “risk assessments” DuPont has offered up.
The pile sits on a layer of “dredged material” (called DM in the report) from the Delaware River.