FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Got this from another message board:

I am the 99%, and I won't believe that Corporations are people until the state of Texas executes one of them.

(Thanks to Heidi, whoever she may be.)

So, no.  And the above is as good a reason as any.

The idea that a corporation is a person is very limited legal fiction. The limitations are something the courts appear to have forgotten. Does a corporation have citizenship? No. Was it born? No? But if it was "born" in the US it is a citizen by the 16th amendment, no? So why can't corporations vote?

So lets look at the 1st amendment. A religion can have a corporation but a corporation cannot have a religion. Corporations do not have the right of assembly as there are anti-trust laws. That leaves press and speech. Corporations cannot publish anything they want as, believe it or not, there are truth in advertizing laws. Nor can truth in advertising be circumvented by using only press conferences.

That leaves us with freedom of political speech. Oddly that was the original intention of the 1st amendment protection, political speech only. It is only in the last half century or so that it has been expanded to more than a protection of political speech and then mainly to strike down local prurient interest laws, i.e., anti-pornography.

One can do a quick run-through of other civil and legal differences such as corporations cannot be arrested or jailed much less executed. They cannot be drafted. So why are corporations considered persons in any sense?

Every thing must have an owner. In matters of religion for example the ownership of church property had to be literally in the name of a living, breathing person. That person could literally sell church property as his own personal whim and keep the proceeds for himself as that person was the legal owner of record. A superior could remove him from office but could not take back ownership.

That was also true for Ford Motor Company and Edison Electric and all the rest of the companies before corporations existed.

It took me a while mulling this difference to see the impact of the difference. Do not be surprised if it seems trivial to you now.

So a church, say the Archdiocese of Boston, changes from personal ownership by the archbishop which it once was, to a corporation. The archbishop as CEO can now be replaced while the corporation retains ownership as a legal person.

The same was true for Ford, Edison, Rockefeller. No longer was "stock" a private transaction of contractually shared profits but within the legal confines of a type of corporation so anyone could buy stock under a fixed set of rules. And thus a stock market is possible -- which might be another argument against legal persons for the purpose of ownership.

As to corporations having the freedom of political speech, decades ago someone came to my door soliciting my signature against a local increase in electric rates. My response was to the effect, I own stock in the electric company, why would I be against raising rates? Yes, how crude and vulgar of me to think only of myself. But the local school retirement program was also invested in it. I have no idea how many other local organizations as well as just individuals were invested in it. I see no reason why the local power company (Virginia Electric if anyone is interested) should not be able to advertise in favor of a rate increase.

Yes, I know, think of the poor. But the US has the most transient poor class in the world. For most people three years is a long time to be poor. Poor today means working tomorrow with a pension plan invested largely in corporations. Even in the worst case, hard core poverty rarely lasts more than a single generation but for them there are special programs which do not make life soft but do not lead to starving in the streets either.

So yes, there are always horrible examples and there are also perfectly reasonable examples which can be misrepresented as horrible. Mostly we have the latter. The former are corrected as a matter of course by replacing the idiot with someone who does not waste corporate monies.

As a test, make a list of all the horrible examples you know. Consider unions are also corporations. PETA and Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are corporations.

Horrible example, Coal lobbies for coal. Everything is more expensive than coal. When coal is restricted electric rates must increase. Are both the power companies and the Environmental Defense Fund against the poor? You can't have it both ways. Both are ignoring the poor.

Does someone want to accuse me of apologizing for corporations? Show me what I said that does that. It has been an established fact of reality for nearly 150 years that the lower the selling price the greater the profit. Every artificially high price such as excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco is the act of government. As long as corporations are legally prohibited from conspiring I do trust them to work towards selling me the most toys at the lowest possible price. I trust them because they make more money if they do that.

And because corporations cannot be arrested or imprisoned that means mere employees even if they are CEOs are the ones who go to jail for conspiring to fix prices. But since higher prices depress earnings and their bonuses depend upon increasing earnings and the proven way to increase earnings is to decrease selling prices what is there to worry about? That several CEOs might get together and conspire to reduce their bonuses?

===

Trivia: Who was the first person to become a legal corporation?

Marlon Brando. The gov in the form of the IRS sued and Brando won.

Trivia 2: No it is not a good idea for you unless your accountant suggests it. If you do not have an accountant in the first place it is never a good idea for you.

Leave them lauging: What is the scientific term for a politician with a hardon?

Homo Erectus Electus

I couldn't believe that Supreme Court decision. Long ago even Republicans wouldn't have done that.

Although our concept of equal protection is there for both the majority and minority, the idea is to lean towards the minority so the power doesn't lean to a monopoly. This decision allows the monopoly to get bigger. In this case the majority of people do not have the majority of money to compete politically so the "majority" in this case is money creating a political monopoly.

Corporations are NOT humans, they are run by humans. As collective businesses they are not.

I am far more than ready to get rid of private funding of politics.

Just a couple responses and corrections and the injection of some nuance here.

I don't think anyone wants to deny any corporation the right to advertise in favor of anything. If Virginia Electric or National Grid (my provider) wants to take out full page ads in every large newspaper in the country explaining why they want to raise rates then they certainly are allowed to with no objection from anyone. When the issue of corporations having the freedom of political speech is invoked what is meant is not merely the right to advertise but rather the right to influence elections with the influx of mass amounts of cash to specific candidates that pledge to work towards the same goals of that corporation regardless of how those programs might affect the officials' human constituents. The "freedom of political speech" is really just Orwellian doublespeak for the freedom to bribe government officials.

Before this launches into a tangent on Citizens United v FEC let me cut everyone off at the pass, it is not my intention to retry that case here. The idea that money=political speech has been circulating for decades. Personally, I don't care if corporations make political videos and then advertises them. Sometimes I find those videos to be hilarious especially when they are done poorly or draw paranoid or foolish conclusions. My point here is that giving corporations the right to contribute to political campaigns out of some misguided belief that corporations should have concrete first amendment protections is in itself a reason to strip corporations of personhood rights.

Actually, this is false. As provided in the abstract for this paper: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf from the OECD:

or as explained in this Economist article:

 source link: http://www.economist.com/node/15908469
 

The US has one of the least transient poor classes at least in the developed world. The poor in America tend to stay poor and tend to do so over generations.

To a point but the social safety net has been largely dismantled over the last 20 years or so.

Sounds like a false equivalency to me. The choice isn't necessarily between coal or poor people living in darkness. The choice is between affordable, clean energy (whether we want that to be nuclear, solar, geothermal, whetever--and the discussion over whether any of these options are practical is an argument for another time) or the same unsustainable system of dirty energy that leads to higher costs being born by the poor in the form of high energy costs, ecological degradation (coal plants are most often located in poor neighborhoods), higher costs associated with health risks, greater costs in the form of infrastructure maintenance, etc. And that doesn't mention the costs of getting the coal out of the ground both in environmental costs and in the cost to human health and well being. All these externalized costs to the poor really trashes the idea that restricting coal is a smack to the balls of the poor.

Not necessarily. You need to get beyond marketing 101 to find out that sometimes a lower selling price actually decreases profit. But again, this might be beyond the scope of the topic at hand. Just be assured that profit is a bit more complex than just as a function of selling price.

As to the question in the OP--Should corporations be considered people? No, they absolutely should not. I do believe that corporations should have well defined advantages (I couldn't bring myself to say rights as only people have rights) but that those advantages do not prioritze corporate interests over individual human interests. Prioritizing corporate interest over individual human interests reifies corporations to the point that humans become mere appendages to corporate goals. Corporatism is truly the reverse of humanism. 

Not really that big, a handful of forms. If RRS were to attempt to run political advertisements it would have to register as some type of corporation, (probably a 501c3) to receive that kind of cash without running into problems with tax laws. 

Who is talking about unlimited funding of campaigns? Direct contributions to campaigns are highly regulated both for individuals and corporations. That isn't even an issue that is anywhere near the table.

I do believe that anyone should be able to buy an advertisement that is political at any time regardless of whether they are a single wealthy person or a large group of people as a corporation. The advertisements ought to be regulated by the same laws that apply to all speech such as libel and slander laws. SCOTUS has done a fair job managing the delicate line between what is protected political speech and what isn't. In general, I have the attitude that more political discussions are positive and fewer political discussions are negative. 

The problem isn't really the campaign money, the real problem is that our federal government holds so much power and influence that throwing massive amounts of money at politicians is a reasonable business decision because regulations have such a large positive or negative effect on a companies bottom line. If you want less money spent on campaigns, remove the power from DC. The one thing most business people are consistent about is they look for a good ROI, if politicians have nothing they can give in return, companies and rich people aren't going to give them money.

Really? Can you link me to a case where the concept of corporate personhood was used to protect a corporation from being sued? There is a case SCOTUS is hearing right now on corporate personhood, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum where the question of corporate personhood will be a primary determinant of the case. If SCOTUS is consistent with Citizens United and recognizes the corporation as a person for legal purposes, Royal Dutch can be sued. If not, then Royal Dutch cannot be sued. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al/?wpmp_switcher=desktop 

It really is an interesting case and could hold large implications for businesses that might deal with governments that abuse fundamental human rights by opening them to liability. I believe that corporations should be held to the same laws that individuals are held to unless a specific exception is absolutely necessary due to the actual differences between a person and a corporation. The ironic thing is that the by fighting against the legal concept of corporate personhood the left could subvert the very concept that would allow corporations to be held liable for human rights abuses in foreign countries. A stated goal (and good one IMO) of theirs for decades. Ah the irrationality of american politics. 

Agree.  Though I would have to ask, from where did the US congress get their money?

This is not my invention. It is largely copying what exists in the rest of the world. Refinements are obviously required such as a one time exception for new political parties.

The problem is not corporate persons it is with the US political party system.

The primary problem is the fact of party membership and the fiction of a "registered" member of a party.

So here is the first legal reform. Only a registered voter may join a political party.

The second reform: Joining a party means actually becoming a dues paying, card carrying member and nothing else.

The third reform: Only members of a political party may contribute to the party.

The fourth reform: Politicians can only accept funds from the party of which they are a member.

Fifth: A person may change parties only once a year and must wait one year before they can contribute. The one time new party exception would apply here, roughly a new party can have new members and instant contributions only in the first year of its creation.

Sixth: All party membership names and their contributions must be made public within 30 days of the event. No contributions can be made less than 60 days prior to an election.

Corporations cannot vote so they cannot join parties thus cannot contribute to parties or politicians. Individuals can front for corporations but between joining and contributing limits it is one contribution per two year election cycle and people know who and how much. Arm's length PAC rules would stay in place. Rules limiting gratuities would be strengthened.

And above all my fantasy congress would vote all these reforms into law.

Stop thinking binay.  Don't dismiss out of hand the possibility of having corporations legally classified as people in some senses, and not legally classified as people in others.  There's no real reason you can't have corporations be people when it comes to lawsuits but not people when it comes to campaign contributions.

So ask a better question.  Instead of asking, "Should corporations be considered people?" ask, "In what ways should corporations be considered people, and in what ways should they not be considered people?"  That way you'll be looking at all the possibilities to try and find the best solution, instead of just trying to pick the best of two extremes.

The problem with letting corporations contribute financially to speech that isn't advertisement of the corporation and/or its products is that the money in a corporation is multi-owned.  Every stockholder has an interest in advertising to increase profits, so advertising is a fine use of corporate money.  But can anyone point to a corporation in which every stockholder is a republican?  Or a Christian?  Or pro-choice?  When a corporation uses corporate money to finance speech like that, it's using people's money to support causes those people don't support.  It puts the money of the many behind the voices of the few. Thus corporate speech is given more oomph than the portion of owners who actually agree with the message would otherwise have.

Or in other words, corporations are bribing both sides.

Which is exactly what I said--nobody really gives a crap if Megaglomcorp is running ads supporting The Rent Is Too Damn High Party. And GE wouldn't need to state that their ad came from them. They just need to form an astroturf group such as the National Smoker's Alliance or the New Millenium Research Council or CHANGEPAC or even Freedom Works (the major astroturf group behind the Tea Party movement) and run ads under their banner.  

I'm going to have to ask for sources on this because I'm not sure that whatever you're saying is true.

I would argue more of your point here but it really isn't germane to the topic. It's a discussion for a different time.

Not if you're poor and you have no health insurance they aren't.

I'm sure the dollar value of ecological degradation, health costs, infrastructure maintenance, etc could be figured out (I don't have the time to do it myself). So they aren't beyond value--whatever the f that's supposed to mean.

And nobody is pretending to be considering costs--these are real world costs born by the poorest among us. The poor very often don't have the resources to pursue justice so these costs are just externalized away.

I didn't say anything about worker health care or merely getting the coal out of the ground. There are costs to the communities where coal is mined that are again here's the word--externalized by the coal companies. Go take a drive through the coal fields of western Pennsylvania where rivers still run orange with mine runoff and mountaintop removal mining has ruined property values.

This is the whole problem with economics. Because something can't be assigned a value in monetary terms it is often seen as having no value or in being passed off as inconsequential. Yes life is intangible in that it is hard to assign a monetary value to life, but that doesn't mean that life doesn't have value. And health is not at all intangible as it can and is assigned a monetary value. That's why health insurance companies exist.

If you want to talk about life span or more accurately life expectancy since that is how life span is statistically measured then industrialization is most assuredly not the source of the increase. Life expectancy at birth at the beginning of the 20th Century (well into industrialization) was about 46 and by 1998 was 73. It's more likely it was advances in public health (access to health care and nutrition) that led to the increase in life expectancy.

Sapient doesn't have the money to run campaign ads. If he did, he could simply pay for it as an individual. Since he does not, he would have to raise large sums of money for the purpose of purchasing those ads. When you start receiving that kind of money, you have to tell the IRS how you got it and you may or may not have to pay taxes on it.

I suppose he could simply say he was selling the services of the site and pay personal income taxes on the money then buy the ad (you would have to double check with a lawyer on that one). But why? He can register as a non-profit organization and be tax-exempt. So strictly speaking, he might not have to, but it would certainly be the logical thing to do. 

Where? Donations to campaigns are strictly regulated regardless of who is donating. Independent expenditures can be unlimited but those ads cannot directly support or directly oppose a specific candidate. If you want to write Bama a $1 million check you can't. If you want to pay $1 million to run advertisements discussing Bamacare I believe you can as long as they follow the FCC guidelines (which I have no idea exactly what those are)

Then you need to study your history. Government has a monopoly on force and history has shown that government force being abused can be extremely dangerous to life and liberty. Corporations can be very dangerous if they control government force, but so can any individual. The government can cause you far more harm than a corporation can without using the government.

As long as basic police protection exists to protect from violence/theft/fraud the only way a corporation has power over you is if you choose to purchase whatever product they sell. The corporation only exists as long as you voluntarily choose to buy their product, so while the corporation isn't the slightest bit interested in what your best interests are they have a lot of incentive to provide you with products that you believe are in your best interest. 

Alas, my friend, history itself does not support this bumper sticker slogan. Here in the US we have this thing called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which is the second item in what is termed the Bill of Rights. This item makes sure that the governmnet does not in fact have a monopoly on force but instead allows for the individual or group use of force by non-governemental entities. The right to bear arms does not just mean you can walk around with a weapon but rather that you have the right to use that weapon to defend yourself, your family, and your property. Along with that some states (31 if I remember correctly which is a majority of them) have adopted castle doctrines and definitions of justifiable homicide which do in action guarantee the right to use force.

Historically speaking corporations have often used legal force to further their own interests such as when they used private police forces to control their workers or to break unions or strikes. I suggest you look into the history of groups like the Pinkertons or the Coal and Iron Police.

The history of slavery in the US also suggests that history might not be as amenable to your slogan as you would thing. Certainly the militias formed to chase escaped slaves were not governmental yet faced no legal consequences for deploying force against slaves. This is also true of the Ku Klux Klan both in the south and the north who were free to use force to further their own interests often with overt support with government officials many of whom were members of their local Klaverns.

These are only a handful of examples from history but are certainly enough to show that the study of history does not support the idea that government has a monopoly on force.

I'm not sure that this is supported in any way. I like how you mention and then quickly disregard that part where "Corporations can be very dangerous if they control government force but so can any individual". First, while indivuals may have more direct influence on me, no individual has the vast scope and power that either corporations or even the government has to effect my life. The question here is not just about force though--it's about how much effect and influence corporations have over my day to day life versus how much the government has.  

Simply untrue. Every action a corporation takes as an entity effects not only the immediate community in which its factories, storefronts, headquarters acts but also the larger social, political, and economic milieu. Let's take the example of a factory. When a corporation decides to build a factory it has several efects on the communitty where it chooses to build that factory. Some are positive such as the creation of jobs or the expansion on the local tax base. Some are negative such as increased environmental degradation or extra pressure on local infrastructure. And of course, often times corporations negotiate tax breaks that cause its tax bill to be far below the costs it imposes on the local community. Then if that factory is the only source of jobs in an area the corporation has an unparalleled ability to shape local ordinances as well as state laws and regulations to its own advantage. Far from government controlling business it is business that is more likely to control how government operates especially since many of the people who people our government institutions are businesspeople. So over the life of that hypothetical factory the corporations are able to negotiate lower local taxes, lower prices for utilities, and in the case of a non-union factory more favorable labor regulations (though this is also often true in union factories just not to the same extent). Then when the corporation moves its factory to Sai-Pan or Mexico or China all those hundreds of people who worked there are suddenly out of work. Thus services such as unemployment or food stamps must be expanded to cover a growing unemployed population. In places where the factory was the major employer what happens is that the community's buying power drops through the floor. No longer can people afford to shop at not only the local stores but also the big box stores. So the Best Buys and Circuit Cities and Safeways all close down further increasing local unemployment rates and forcing people to travel farther and farther away to purchase groceries or medical care or even luxury goods. In fact, whole communities have been devastated not by government action but by the whims of corporations (I would recommend a great book on US industrial history titled The Deindustrialization of America by Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison).

Also, there is the way corporations control not just the material basis of human life but also the way they control the ideal basis of human life. The media after all is run by corporations. And it is the media that guides not only how we receive information but also in how we interpret that information through how it chooses to present the information. For instance many people believe that crime and violence are at an all time high when in fact the opposite is really true. It is the corporate decision to feature stories on death and violence and child killers and kidnappers that have led people to hold this false belief (again I feel compelled to recommend a great book on the subject--this time The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner). And if you really want to doubt how the corporate media influences if not outright controls how people view reality then just wait a little while as Fox News starts its annual War on Christmas bullshit and you can see directly how we atheists are demonized over falsehoods and lies. 

Hahahahahahaha! Oh my non-existent god that's rich. Corporations don't have any incentive to provide you with what is in your best interest. Do they have any incentive to even remotely consider their workers' best interest? The best interest of the communities in which they operate? Most often they have just convinced people that corporate interests are peoples' best interest. While I'm no Marxist myself, Marx was really on to something when he discussed false consciousness.

So yeah, as much as I distrust the government (and I do mistrust them) I have far far less trust in corporations to look out for my interests than I do for the government to do so. After all, it is government's job to look out after all our interests in general and theoretically to be reactive to citizen imput (and certainly this is more possible on local levels than on the state or federal level) and needs. The job of corporations are to look out for merely the needs and interests of the shareholders regardless of how that effects the larger society in which they are allowed to act.

 Let us not forget that corporations are made up of fine ladies and gentlemen.

Everyone who took part in criminal activity should be punished. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
Those directly responsible for allowing or even participating in illegal activities (management) should receive the harshest penalty, as its their responsibility to prevent such activity, not promote it.
I have no interest in allowing the rich to get away with murder and forcing the poor to pay the penalty. Which, believe it or not, is the system we currently use.

What makes you think I think that? There are however, far too many bad players at the top. If most companies thought like my prior owners where I work, our country would not be in this mess.

Hmm....did somebody pee in your Cherios this morning?  Somebody has anger issues.  I suggest a good therapist would help that anger. 

Oh and I can tell you learned your lessons from Saul Alinsky well.  Did you pull your hand book, Rules for Radicals out when responding to my post? 

Did I even mention your screen name?  Answer....NOOOOOOOO DUH!

But since your trying to mischaracterize me, I will correct your perception.  First, I am vehemently against the bailouts.  Second, I would be for revoking the corporate charters of all the banks who fucked people over and jailing the fidicuaries and management responsible for the wrong doing.  Third, you were predictable.  I was right, what I posted would piss some people off...LOL. 

Oh...when you use the phrase 'The Rich'....look at what you are saying.  Just replace 'the Rich' with 'the Jews' and keep your normal rhetoric and guess what....you come across sounding like that funny little German guy who marched with a goose step. 

You have a nice day. 

You do realize that legally recognized corporate personhood is precisely the reason why they can buy judges and politicians to keep them from getting sued?

You mean because I can't rattle off names of judges and corporations there have been no cases of corporations influencing judges and politicians?

Transparency laws and independent investigations coupled with use of today's technology invalidate your objection. And the solution used still causes more harm to the little guy, so of what value is it anyway?

You are making an assumption and an untested one at best.  The one thing that is sure is that we KNOW what has happened in the past prior to the ruling.  When you try to play with the law, you are effectively playing with people's lives and if there is a flaw in the legal system, more than just this or any similar case gets hurt.  It should be tested before invalidating a tried and true method.  Granted, the current solution is not perfect and very far from it,....it still beats what was had before by a long shot.  Remember, you monkey with the constitution, you are playing with fire. 

I am all for full transparency.  New laws need to be vetted very well so as not to infringe on our constitutional rights.  I am not so quick to say  that we need new laws considering, and it is my contention, the lawmakers we have now of any party are mostly idiots who are bought and paid for.  I agree we should fix it.  I simply advocate a very slow approach.  For every new technology invented, there is a new one that thwarts it.  If you really want to punish some of the bastards who fuck people over in big corporations, especially these banks, a little person can do one thing.....  Every hear of a lien?  You have to do some research, but what you do is locate some piece of real estate and go down to the county courthouse where the property is located and file a lien against it.  That lien will stay on until it is paid.  If it is an incorrect lien, the person to whom it was filed against has to go to court to have it removed and it is a MAJOR hassle.  There is a state court judge in NY who found out he had liens placed against his home of a nature like this and NO KIDDING...LOL....they totaled to over FOR REAL....$1 Trillion.  It was reported that so many people filed liens that it will take him over 10 years of going to court to get them all removed.  He and his heirs will be unable to sell that house until those liens are resolved.  Likewise so could this be done to the asshole corporate CEO's or management.  There is always ways to beat the bastards.   

A corporation is an evil entity designed to consume.

The fat cats running these corporations are greedy and bigoted.

The people consuming the goods from said corporations are left with little options where to get the best deals on products and refuse to spend extra to support communities.

Ohai, Wal-Mart, didn't see you there!