DEATH TO CORPORATE PERSONHOOD....There'll be no democracy until their "special rights" are revoked

[marmar]

"... it's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They're totalitarian institutions - you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There's about as much freedom as under Stalinism."

- Noam Chomsky




From ReclaimDemocracy:


NOTE: You can link to any of the documents, court cases, organizations or case studies listed below from this page: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood /


Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Read our draft constitutional amendment to revoke corporate constitutional "rights" and offer your thoughts.

Overviews

Our Hidden Corporate History
This overview of the rise of corporate power in the U.S. also is available as a 2 page flier (pdf), making a great handout.

Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers
by Jan Edwards (pdf)

Current Controversies Relating to Corporate Personhood
A Blow Against the Corporate Empire
A California county blazes a trail that should inspire action in many other communities.

Wal-Mart Lawyers Claim Class-Action Suit Would Violate Corporation's "Civil Rights"

Democracy v Corporate "Free Speech" -- Corrupting the Ballot Initiative Process

Digging Deeper: Articles, Briefs & Books
Recommended Articles

The Hijacking of the 14th Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom (pdf)

Santa Clara Blues by William Meyers (pdf). Also in HTML format

Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation by Richard Grossman and Frank Adams

Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights by Carl Mayer.
Recommended for lawyers or those interested in a detailed legal history (70 pp html).

When Silence is Not Golden: Negative Corporate Free Speech by Dean Ritz

Abolish Corporate Personhood by Molly Morgan and Jan Edwards.

The PBS program NOW compiled some useful resources on the topic for this 2005 episode.

Recommended Books

The People's Business by Charlie Cray and Lee Drutman

Gangs of America by Ted Nace

Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann

When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten

The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960 by Morton Horwitz (for those interested in detailed legal background). See also Volume 1: 1780-1860.

Significant U.S. Court Cases in the Evolution of Corporate Personhood / Commercial Free Speech

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
Corporate charters are ruled to have constitutional protection.

Munn v. State of Illinois (1876)
Property cannot be used to unduly expropriate wealth from a community (later reversed).

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights. Several articles linked above detail how this happened.

Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)

Lochner v. New York (1905)
States cannot interfere with "private contracts" between workers and corporation -- marks the ascension of "substantive due process."

Liggett v. Lee (1933)
Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations' "due process" rights.

Ross v. Bernhard (1970)
7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations.

U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976)
A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Marshall v. Barlow (1978)
The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations -- federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives, even spending by corporate political action committees. Spending money to influence politics is now a corporate "right." Justice Rehnquist's dissent is a recommended read.
Related articles: * Ballot Initiatives Hijacked * Behind the Powell Memo

Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980)
This oft-cited decision concerns a state ban on ads promoting electricity consumption.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Upheld limits on corporate spending in elections.

Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)

Nike v Kasky (2002)
Nike claims California cannot require factual accuracy of the corporation in its PR campaigns. California's Supreme Court disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal, then issued a non-ruling in 2003.

Campaigns to Revoke Corporate Free Speech

Nike v Kasky was one of the highest profile court cases to date regarding "corporate free speech." The case concluded with a settlement on September 12, 2003. We have preserved the large body of material we produced and collected relating to this case, which represents all side of the issue here. We soon will add a new, more general page focusing on commercial speech issues.

We used Kasky v. Nike to advance public understanding and legal arguments against granting corporations constitutional rights. Our work included filing a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, doing talk shows around the country, and confronting the ACLU on its support for corporate personhood at the expense of human freedom. Please read and endorse our sign-on letter to the ACLU, which urges their directors to reverse their advocacy of corporate personhood. This 3 page letter offers a more detailed argument than the above flyer and links to our endorsement form to urge the ACLU to change position. We hope to resume actively campaigning to change the ACLU from within when funding allows.

In summer, 2004, we initiated a new campaign aimed at revoking corporate "rights" to influence ballot initiatives and referenda (related article). We'll publish much more on this front in the months ahead.

Groups Challenging Corporate Personhood

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
has extensive information available as part of a study packet: Challenging Corporate Power

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
does notable work to revoke corporate power in Pennsylvania and is the source for two of the initiatives listed below

The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy
helped inspire the work of many other organizations listed here, ours included

The Aurora Institute
educates and organizes on corporate power issues in Canada, where corporate legal history has closely matched that of the U.S.

The New Rules Project
serves as a clearinghouse for democracy-enhancing local and state legislation, much of it challenging corporate power

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
works effectively at the community level in California

Redwood Coast Alliance for Democracy
has several informative articles and works on related issues in Northern California.

Initiatives Challenging Corporate "Rights"

Pennsylvania Township Passes Ordinance Rejecting Corporate "Rights" -- a First in U.S. Report on the Porter Township Ordinance

The Wayne Township Ordinance This successfully enacted legislation bars recidivist corporations from operating in the Township.

Corporate Personhood Ordinance Model legislation to revoke personhood locally

Non-binding resolutions have been passed in Point Arena and Arcata, CA and, most recently, in Berkeley, as a symbolic stand and educational tool.

Anti-corporate Farming Laws This Nebraska law is one of several such state laws denying corporate "rights" in agriculture.

Party Platform Planks Opposing Corporate Personhood In June 2004, Washington state's Democratic Party became the latest to officially oppose corporate personhood -- a tactic that lends itself to being used in almost any locale. Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Maine have passed similar policies.

Two New Jersey legislative bills would revoke corporate personhood within the state and ban corporate political spending. View either the first or second draft bill in pdf.

Other Websites of Note

Unequal Protection This website by Unequal Protection author Thom Hartmann includes model ordinances for every state which would eliminate Constitutional privileges for corporations within individual municipalities and another set to amend state constitutions.

[aquart]

1. And since you won't get that, what do you plan to do next?

[ColbertWatcher]

2. Educate people.

First: corporations are not people and should not be given special rights over human, flesh and blood citizens. And secondly, nothing is carved in stone; we can be the change we want as long as we participate.

Anyone who believes the future is already written has no need for a democracy.

[nichomachus]

3. If that doesn't happen, there is no "next"

We will just repeat the cycle over and over and over and over. We will sink into serfdom, while the corporations and the ultra-wealthy laugh at us.

It really is a matter of survival.

[Truth2Tell]

22. That's what they told MLK. nt

[grahamhgreen]

47. Of course we will get this. It's naive to think the corporate state is healthy.

[defendandprotect]

70. We just bailed out corrupt capitalism with $12 TRILLION + of taxpayer dollars --!!!

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth

and resources of a nation from the many to the few --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

[rhett o rick]

101. Bail out is misleading. Our $12 trillion dollars merely postponed the inevitable

crash and made is worse.

[defendandprotect]

102. Are you dismissing the optimistic notes being sung . . . ????

I'm with you --

[rhett o rick]

114. Pres Obama's options are very limited. Some day someone will have to bite it.

The giant pyramid scheme we call our economy has to crash and (forgive me) someone will have to pay the piper. I think those running the pyramid scheme have convinced the President that we should put off the crash. Maybe hoping for a miracle. But to me, bailing out wall street is analogous to forest fire suppression. You can suppress the fire for a while but when it finally comes, and it will, it will be more devastating than ever.

[defendandprotect]

69. It's a circle . . . begin anywhere -- end the system of BRIBERY we call campaign financing--!!!

[Grinchie]

79. Corporations are nothing more than a means to avoid accountability

Sure, they may get some punitive fines is some cases, but it is made much more difficult due to all of the protections put in place that were designed to protect the individual, instead of a cabal engaged in organized crime.

The goal of Capitalism has been hijacked as an excuse to omit details and facts that would reveal the toxic nature of Corporate greed and unethical behavior.

Take a look at the free reign Genetically Modified Organisms have had to insinuate their way into the public food supply without meaningful long term studies regarding exposure to new toxins, proteins and genetic traits which persist within our intestinal tract.\

Take a look at the Pharmaceutical industry which will knowingly release drugs on the market, because the risks of death by a few individuals are outweighed by the enormous profit for those that do not reacts adversely. They have decided to mortgage your future by allowing you to take drugs that can cause severe troubles in the future -- After they have extracted lots of money from you. It's their gamble that you won't have the energy to demand satisfaction, and if you do, it's a mere pittance of the overall revenue.

Corporations are nothing more than discrete Banana Republics, all jostling with each other for a part on the world stage.

[rhett o rick]

103. Agree, and don't forget Big Oil putting benzene in their gasoline as a cheap

means of disposal. The carcinogenic instead ends up in our atmosphere.

[liberalla]

4. Hear hear!

I second the Unequal Protection website recommendation. Hell, I agree and second your whole post.

K&R

[jody]

5. Agree and the easiest way to move in that direction is with a SCOTUS that understands

our Constitution begins "We the People of the United States" and not "We the Corporations of the Corporate State".

Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

[RB TexLa]

6. So you would deny a corporation the right to counsel? The right to a trial?

The presumption of innocence? The right to be protected from the government searching at will?


Really?

I'm still waiting to hear someone say "I'd trust the government to be able to search any corporate offices or records anytime they wish without having to show cause."

[wtbymark]

11. Up until the late 1800's (Robber Baron era)

Corperations that outlived their initially intended purpose were ILLEGAL and disposed by the government.

[KansDem]

12. No, put it's officers on trial

Just like the military. When a war crime is committed, the ones who gave the orders are tried and punished, not the entire military.

The same with corporations.

[RB TexLa]

13. It is the same. Ken Lay went to trial, many many other people have gone to trial for the actions

they caused a corporation to commit.

And just like with the military the person convicted criminally is usually not the one who pays the civil fine, the corporation is the one they go after for that.

[KansDem]

16. I was referring to the war crimes committed by both Germans and Japanese during WWII

We didn't put the whole German army or Japanese navy on trial. Just the officers at the top who gave the orders. And we executed them if they were found guilty.

Perhaps if the same held for US corporations, the top CEOs would think twice before they committed any malfeasance...

[pokercat999]

32. Ah, how's that work'n for ya? nt

[defendandprotect]

73. It works when our elected officials aren't bribed by elites/corporates . . .

[Occulus]

14. I suppose you think your toaster has those rights, yes?

Corporations are not persons. They should not have rights under the law, nor should they be bestowed those rights. Or do you want them voting, too?

The only thing we should allow corporations chartered under our laws are privileges, including all rights acknowledged under our Constitution.

They should not have a "right" to legal counsel.
They should not have any rights of free speech.
They definitely should not have the right to bear arms (!!!).
They should not have a right to privacy.
They should not have the right to buy and sell each other, or pieces thereof.
They should not have any rights, period.

The only thing a corporation should have is privilege, and it should be made clear to them that those privileges can (and will) be revoked if even so much as a corporate toenail steps over the boundaries of the law. Along those lines, we should also hang over their heads a corporate death penalty for extreme violations of the law- the company is closed, its assets are liquidated, the gross proceeds distributed evenly to all employees below the level of the board of directors, and the unsatisfied secured and unsecured creditors legally sicced on everyone left standing, upper management and up.

We have to put business back under our bootheels, and we have to show we're willing to simply do away with them, with prejudice.

I am only a friend to business when they are a) obeying the law and b) silent to our legislatures. When they go beyond either of those things, they are trying to rise above their proper place, and need to be smacked back down to reality.

That anyone could think otherwise is unbelievable to me, given that corporations are NOT, in any sense of the word, persons.

[RB TexLa]

26. A toaster doesn't operate or conduct business.

They should not have a "right" to legal counsel.

So anyone who can hire anyone who passed the bar, actually anyone who has read some law books should be able to sue a corporation and they should not be able to have counsel.

They should not have any rights of free speech.

So no corporation should be able to advertise their products?

They definitely should not have the right to bear arms (!!!).

So no gun maker can form a corporation? No corporation can chose to provide firearms for security, score one for criminals.

They should not have a right to privacy.

I go back to my first post, you would trust the government to be able to search any corporation or corporate records any time it wishes for any reason it wishes.

They should not have the right to buy and sell each other, or pieces thereof.

So if you can't raise the capital to build a company yourself, you can not sell pieces of it to any coperate investors, only individuals, well actually if a corporation didn't take possession of the stock between buyer and seller they wouldn't be sold. I'm sure you'd say that indivduals would just decide to take the legal responsibility of doing that themselves.

They should not have any rights, period.

So if I wish to go burn down a coperate headquarters, as long as no people or no personal property is there, no crime. They have to right to their property?

[Occulus]

28. Not at all. They should be *able* to do all those things.

What I'm saying is, unlike real, live human beings who have rights, corporate entities should be forced to relegate what you and I would call "right" status to "privilege" status. As in, all those things you and I consider to be "rights" should be able to be taken away from any corporation at any time, should they disobey the law or (I'm adding this now) take action so far outside their own charter as to be inapplicable to the purpose of the corporation as stated.

Of course none of this should apply to individuals when they are acting in an individual capacity. We all agree that Constitutional rights apply to human citizens of the US, and to others as provided therein. What I want to see is the word "natural" or "actual" placed immediately prior to the word "person" in the Constitution and all its amendments so we can bring an end to the legal and logical fallacy of corporate personhood once and for all.

I'm not going to exhibit much flexibility with what I have stated above unless it's something that further refines the idea. Speaking objectively, the false legal doctrine of corporate personhood lies at the root of a great many of the evils in the US and in its actions abroad. It's one of the largest reasons today's megacorporations are so unassailable in court. They fought, and fought hard, for this status over a century ago, and it was a protracted and ongoing campaign.

The power they've achieved is the 'why', and it needs to be stopped. Stripping them of their personhood, and by logical extension, their "rights", seems to me to be the only way to fix the problem.

edit: I know, I know... what I want would require a Constitutional Amendment. Because this originated with (among other things) a slick interjection by a court clerk, and has since been interpreted as an actual SCOTUD opinion, it's so pervasive that an Amendment is definite in order. What's nice about this one is that it's one very small change- add "natural" or "actual" immediately prior to each instance of the word "person"- and can be very easily explained and campaigned for.

The hard part is convincing people that it's necessary.

second edit: "ruman" beings? I need to work on my mad typing skillz...

[datasuspect]

39. a toaster conducts the bidness of makin mah toast

[grahamhgreen]

50. LMFAO!

[Raineyb]

83. And when it ceases to do so it's charter is revoked

aka you throw it away. As such it stays in its place, subordinate to actual living humans.

Regards

[defendandprotect]

75. Neither does a "corporation" conduct business . . . the humans who control it do . . .

The humans who run the corporation have a right to counsel --

And, without doubt, corporate advertising has to be regulated and controlled -
we have a runaway situation now - Reagan permitted TV ads to double --
advertisers are invading homes on our telephone lines and by private mail --
by internet --
From tobacco to direct peddling of medical drugs and plastic surgery on TV -
processed foods and brown surgar water colas -- junk foods --all of this needs to
be looked at for the harm it does to society.

Advertising was previously done in separate brochures -- not intermingled with our
news, etal.



A. They definitely should not have the right to bear arms (!!!).

Q. So no gun maker can form a corporation? No corporation can chose to provide firearms for security, score one for criminals.

Yes, a gun maker could form a corporation -- provided the individuals making the decisions
are held accountable for any harm done.

Gun-makers would have the right to supply government/state militias . . .
Blackwater and other mercenaries should be put out of business.

A. They should not have a right to privacy.

Q. I go back to my first post, you would trust the government to be able to search any corporation or corporate records any time it wishes for any reason it wishes.

Individuals running the corporation would have a right to legal counsel and privacy --
as long as they are responsible for the decisions they made and any harm done.
Corporations do not make decisions -- CEOs make those decisions.

I would trust a "people's" government faster than I would trust a corporation to do anything.

A. They should not have the right to buy and sell each other, or pieces thereof.

Q. So if you can't raise the capital to build a company yourself, you can not sell pieces of it to any coperate investors, only individuals, well actually if a corporation didn't take possession of the stock between buyer and seller they wouldn't be sold. I'm sure you'd say that indivduals would just decide to take the legal responsibility of doing that themselves.

Obviously, the corporate scheme is intended to avoid responsibility . . .
to use OPM's . . . where the contributors become dead partners.
"Shareholders" with no opinion and little influence?

If you open a business with money from your family and friends you know what will happen --
everyone will have a say in how it is run.

A. They should not have any rights, period.

Q. So if I wish to go burn down a coperate headquarters, as long as no people or no personal property is there, no crime. They have to right to their property?

Why would you be able to burn down any building?
Movie theater, corporate building, Embassy, Women's Clinic, small business?
You're grasping at straws ---

In fact, it is the reverse that has made life so frightening on this planet ... with oil
companies hiring mercenaries to do away with opposiiton forces --
and that's just one example of violent political power wielded by corporations --
See: Major General Smedley Darlington Butler on the issue of government interceding for
corporate powers

[Raineyb]

80. +1 Exactly!

:thumbsup:

Corporations used to have a purpose a la to build a canal or something like that and if they hadn't completed their purpose within a set time frame the corporation was dissolved and had to be reestablished. Now we have these immortal entities which are beholden to nobody but claim to have the same rights as a natural person. It's absurd and has turned these entities into uber citizens that have more rights than natural persons. This needs to be corrected ASAP or we're in a whole heap of trouble.

Regards

[Fumesucker]

30. The point is though that corporations have *superior* rights to those of the average individual..

The major point of forming a corporation is to shield individuals from responsibility for what the corporation does..

With rights comes responsibility, corporations are basically not responsible for the harm they do to the same extent that the average individual is. To see corporate officers go to jail for actions that their corporation is responsible for is rare enough that it makes headlines virtually every time it happens..

A corporation is an immortal and amoral entity that often wields power far beyond that of any single individual and whose only responsibility is to its shareholders, a corporation has no responsibility to society. This is in direct contrast with an individual, who does indeed have responsibilities to society.

Why *should* a corporation have any rights at all, where is the Bill of Rights for corporations?

[ImOnlySleeping]

36. Strawman

Not treating corporations as people doesn't mean they lose all rights. People would just have to have a debate about what those rights are.

[droidamus2]

38. Not quite

That is the point. All individuals within the corporation from the CEO on down have these rights as citizens. The corporation is nothing but a legal entity and therefore should not have 'the rights of a citizen'. Allowing a 'corporation' as an entity to have these rights subverts the idea that this is a government of the people. How can GM, for example, have free-speech rights in effect GM is just a trade mark and a name on incorporation papers. As a financial entity GM should only have the rights given to business entities to operate under the business laws of the US and its States. Citizens, ie. CEOs, should not be able to hide behind a 'corporate' cover they should be treated the same as citizens with all due rights.

[grahamhgreen]

49. Personally, I'd deny them the right to exist at all - and I have a corporation!

[wolfgangmo]

56. Straw-man-palooza

Any more fearfull straw men you want to send up in trail balloons?

The OP was not talking about any of those things but let's break down you fear. Presumption of innocence and protections from unlawful search and seizure are both right granted to PEOPLE, not corps in the original constitution.

As for showing cause. They do that, or should show cause every time. Why would you think that they wouldn't?

Unbelievable.

[RB TexLa]

65. If a corporation did not have a right to privacy, ie the 4th amendment

no law enforcement would have to have any cause or reason to search a corporate office or records. Why would I think they wouldn't? Because in situations where they are not required to, they don't. If you leave a suitcase on the sidewalk a police officer is not going to get a search warrant to search the suitcase, they don't have to. So no they do not show cause every time when they don't have to.

I guess you have come the closest to saying you trust the government to be able to search a corporation or corporate records any time they wish without cause.

[defendandprotect]

72. Individual have those rights. . . anyone who breathese has those rights . . .

a corporation doesn't commit crime, doesn't embezzle, doesn't do harm to the environment --

it is humans who run the corporations who have the right to counsel -- and the duty to

be held responsible for any harm the corporation may do.

Additionally, yes -- corporations were folded once they served their function.

We can fold them for doing harm --

[HillbillyBob]

78. look up monsanto for instance PCB production up to 1971

use of such till much later in the 70s in Europe even tho the manufacture was banned.
So far as I can see and I have looked very few corporations are innocent.
Many are guilty of some pretty heinous crimes aided and abetted by our government and even army. Look into Chiquita / United Fruits way of doing business starting circa 1880s.
It is time to hold corpses accountable and dismantle AND charge and try their officers for the crimes of the corporation. Corporations were instituted to protect the officers and stake holders from the wrong doings of the corporation ..that in it self says they planned on being criminal enterprises..
Look up the many families that owned ships in the 18 century and you will see many made fortunes on the China trade as it was called, that was shipping opium into China against that countries governments wishes. Need I go on.
Chevron in Ecuador, Exxon in Nigeria, Dow nee Union Carbide in India.
Monsanto in India and elsewhere, Coca Cola in many places especially in South America using local militias to put down those who protested the theft and poisoning of local water tables.

[MicaelS]

90. If a human being kills another human being,

Even unintentionally, they can be sent to prison or even executed. How many corporate officers in the history of US have ever been sent to prison for killing a human being, or beings, because of the decisions they made? How many corporations have been seized or dissolved by government for killing people?

If business is going to maintain the fiction that corporate entities are people, then let's start treating them like people. Let's start throwing some of these corporate execs into prison the next time they make a decision to cut costs that results in the death of a human being. Let's make the investors suffer right along with the execs. The investors choose unethical people to run the companies they invest in, then they loose their investment.

Since it appears the only way to get certain people's attention is to hit them in the pocketbook, then let's hit them there, hard. American businesses have shown that in the last 30 years that they as a group are a bunch of amoral wretches. They don't care about America, or American citizens in any way shape fashion or form. Since business people refuse to voluntarily abide by what society deems to be ethical behaviour, ("Passenger Bill of Rights", for example) then the only alternative is to force them by power of law. Since it's quite apparent that many business people don't give a damn about ethics, then get out of business. If business / corporate people try to act as jack-booted little fascists, then it should be made clear that society will not tolerate that sort of behavior from them.

The problem is that SCOTUS has given businesses far too much leeway in the way they are allowed to act, and be treated: i.e. as people, when manifestly they are not. People have rights, business should not, but they do. Bluntly the laws should be changed to strip ALL business of their Corporate Personhood, and ensure that under the US Constitution only HUMAN BEINGS have rights. And before anyone trots out the "taxation without representation" meme, businesses do not have the right to vote.

WHY is a corporate person treated better than a human being? Why are LLCs allowed to have limited liability when people do not?

[rhett o rick]

105. So do you support the OP or not? Looks like you are defending CorpAmerica. Am I wrong? nm

[RB TexLa]

111. No I do not support the OP. This myth that corporations have been given *personhood* by the

recognition of the fact that an entity that can be found liable and operates commercial endeavors should have protection of rights is very laughable.

[L0oniX]

7. Maybe we should torture them first and then kill them.

[anonymous171]

8. Can a corporation be criminally liable? nt

[jody]

17. No, corporate officials yes but not the corporation, e.g. a drug mfg. can sell drugs that cause many

deaths and escape with a negligible fine.

Anyone sentenced to prison for years loses his/her ability to earn money for that period.

A comparable sentence for a corporation would be for society to confiscate a corporation's profits for a period equal to that served by an individual imprisoned for similar crimes.

[anonymous171]

25. That's a good idea.

Corporate Personhood is only acceptable if the corporation is treated as an actual person. No more double standards.

[wtbymark]

9. The most important issue of our lifetimes

We live in a corperate aristocracy (if you hadn't noticed) and we have to strip them of their unwarrented power if we are to survive as a modern liberal democracy. To do anything less is to sell our childrens freedom. And we now live in the perfect shit storm to shove up their ass. They don't like it? No, more business for you in America. It's time we start acting like Americans.

[defendandprotect]

76. Actually, "most important issue" is Global Warming -- thanks to corporations -- !!!

[valerief]

10. We need a War on Corporate Personhood. nt

[Lint Head]

15. End corporate rights now! It is greed that caused this entire concept

of corporation person hood to slowly destroy lives physically and financially. My father lost most of his hearing working in a Carolina textile mill. They also used child labor. This is well documented. Without Unions people are slaves to what ever a corporation does or says. Ending person hood for corporate slave holders and mercenary factories would alleviate a lot of things in peoples lives.
:dem:

[jody]

19. Greed and limited liability laws passed by a congress owned by corporatists. n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. Strong K&R -- corporations are not HUMAN nor do they deserve any special rights!

Shit is ludicrous. K&R

[Vidar]

20. K&R.

[blindpig]

21. No half measures, death to Capitalism.

Corporations are no anomaly or aberration, they are an evolutionary stage of Capitalism. Fuck Capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

88. Actually, it just recently died . . . but we resuscitated it again with $12 TRILLION . . .

I think Naomi Klein said this is historically the biggest heist yet???

[blindpig]

99. Naw, that weren't death, just a king hell hangover

the result of it's last bout of "irrational exuberance". And like a drunk it will accept aspirin and admonition, say that it's learned it's lesson, then go out and do it again. Which would be ok by me, except it's driving over a cliff and the whole planet is in the back seat. Time to get that sumbitch out of the drivers seat for once and all.

[pleah]

23. K & R!!!

[leftofthedial]

24. we can't get the current crop of liars to punish war criminals.

we can't get the current crop of liars to reform health care.

we can't get the current crop of liars to do the minimum to help unions.

we can't get the current crop of liars to stop giving our grandkids' money to rich bankers.



and you want WHAT?

[JoseGaspar]

33. I had a friend once who proposed a nationwide general strike,

I had a friend once who proposed a nationwide general strike in order to promote some incidental reform which I have long forgotten.

I asked him, "If you could organize a 'nationwide general strike', why wouldn't you demand everything?"

He stared at me blankly. "What do you mean by 'everything'?"

The proposal is a band aid on top of a band aid on top of a band aid.

The patient has cancer.

[leftofthedial]

41. corporate personhood is itself a cancer,

but the likelihood of it being changed by those who are wealthy and elite because of it is nil.

[blindpig]

43. Ya get rid of that and they'll find another scam.

As long as it's capitalism they are bound to find ways to maximize profits, it is the nature of the beast. The history of capitalism is one of excess then crash then reform then a new angle to attain excess...... Remember the Trusts, old TR busted them, for a while...Then the circumvention of those reforms lead to the Great Depression, which lead to the New Deal, and here we are again.

Nope, it is Capitalism that needs to go, lest we ride this rollercoaster to social misery and environmental collapse.

[leftofthedial]

71. bingo

ya found a truffle there

[defendandprotect]

89. Excactly . . . and, yes, capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system which needs to go--!!!

[Wednesdays]

27. K&R

:kick:

[farmboxer]

29. America is a plutocracy

owned and operated by the extremely rich.

[cascadiance]

31. Replacing Souter on SCOTUS with Erwin Chemerinsky would be a good start!

Minimally we should DEMAND that if ANY questions about judicial activism are asked, that someone like Feingold needs to ask the judicial candidate as to whether the Santa Clara / Union Pacific court case head notes qualifies as judicial activism, and if it doesn't, then perhaps did it qualify as "court clerk" activism, since the relevant language giving corporate personhood was by the court clerk when writing the headnote for that case.

Chemerinsky has had a history of writing against corporate speech rights in his piece for a case involving Nike where he didn't find that corporations had any laws giving them "free speech"....

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/public_interest_briefs.html

ReclaimDemocracy.org, Other Public Interest Groups Line Up Against Corporate Giants in Supreme Court

...

U.S. Representatives Dennis Kucinich, Corrine Brown, Bob Filner and Bernard Sanders
Brief written by University of Southern California Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky and Loyola Law School professor Catherine Fisk>

Summary: False factual statements intended to sell products are commercial speech and not protected by the First Amendment. Nike was speaking not to influence a political debate, but to sell its products. If accepted, Nike's claims would endanger a vast array of consumer protection laws: cosmetics companies could lie about whether they do animal testing; tuna companies could lie about whether they catch tuna in a dolphin safe way; manufacturers could lie about whether their products were made by union labor or in the USA.

...

[Alcibiades]

34. The main difference between corporations

and people is that we have natural limits, chief among them our mortality. If life is a game, and you set up the rules so that one set of players is immortal and another set is not, the immortals will wind up owning everything.

[onenote]

48. here's a fun fact: Democratic Underground is a corporation

See that little "LLC" at the bottom of page with DU's copyright notice? Stands for Limited Liability Corporation.

[wolfgangmo]

59. Not to put too fine a point on your point

But LLC stands for limited liablility company and not corporation.

Check yur IRS code.

[onenote]

62. I stand corrected. But the point remains the same

There are a variety of legal classifications for organizations to operate under: partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc. Different legal classifications may have different rules apply to them with respect to taxation and with respect to liability. When folks call for abolishing corporate personhood, they generally do not draw distinctions between and amongst these different classifications or offer any rational basis for distinguishing between them when it comes to denying some, but maybe not others, certain rights, such as the right to sue in the organization's name and on the organization's behalf.

[Alcibiades]

112. Originally corporations were served to serve a public

purpose. When corporations ceased to serve real public needs and their main duty was construed to be to provide profit for their shareholders, we set ourselves up for the current situation, which is an economy dominated by an ever-decreasing number of what used to be called trusts.

We're talking about large publicly held corporations. My point was that we have natural limits and corporations do not, and therefore they should not be treated as persons, period.

[onenote]

113. I'm still looking for someone to explain

how corporations could be distinguished for purposes of allowing some to have certain rights, but others not to have those rights. Not all corporations are formed as profit making entities. There are for profit corporations and not-for-profit corporations. Among for profit entities there are different types of organizations -- different types of corporations, partnerships, etc. Some non-profits are much larger and "profitable" (in the sense of revenues) than some for profits. Would all non-profits have the right to sue, and free speech rights? WOuld all for-profits not have those rights? Would it depend on size (as determined using what measure)? How would one overcome the inevitable equal protection claim if some organizations were deemed, as organizations, to have certain rights, but others deemed not have them?

Should corporations be subject to suit, but not able to sue? SHould the NAACP have been subject to suit in the Claiborn Hardware case, but not able to bring suit in its own name in other cases? If the government passes a law or an agency adopts a regulation that is arguably unconsititutional or otherwise contrary to law, should the corporation that is required to comply with the law and subject to penalty for non-compliance, be able to challenge the law?

Saying corporate personhood should be abolished is a nice rallying cry. But what how does one do it in the real world?

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Corporations are immortal? Tell that to Pan American World Airways, Standard Oil,

and Enron. All three of those have ceased to exist during my Great Grandmother's lifetime.

[KittyWampus]

64. True, but their assets were absorbed by other corporations.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. And you assets will be absorbed by those in your will when you die

That doesn't make you immortal.

[defendandprotect]

91. Corporations don't breathe . . . good enough for me!

[Echo In Light]

35. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism...."

....because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

~ Mussolini

[scentopine]

37. When corporations form groups and use collective bargaining

its called good business. When workers form groups and bargain for their best interests its called un-American.

We pay outrageous rates for health care. Your money is funneled into lobbyists, and business groups and politicians who then enact legislation that allows insurance companies to screw you over.

Weeeee! Just how great is that? Like free money!

[Echo In Light]

52. Perhaps if more average people realized just how badly they're being screwed in this sham democracy

...maybe some things would change for the better. Who knows? Maybe used and controlled is what many want to be? ...initially you doubt it, or don't want to be cynical ...yet so many indicators point in that direction.

[fascisthunter]

55. yee-up. ... which means America is Fascist

at least our government and economy is. This is not capitalism folks, nor is it a form of socialism.

[Echo In Light]

84. Dropped the jack boots and arm bands, adopted the wing tip and briefcase

[fascisthunter]

86. yup

[BlancheSplanchnik]

40. K&R and thanks for the copious study material

Ah if only I could speed read! Toooo many things I want to read....

[Bozita]

42. K&R

[onenote]

44. How are you defining a "corporation"?

Most political and charitable organizations are legally "corporations" == the NAACP, MoveON, COmmon Cause, the Brady Campaign, the Environmental Defense Fund.

Do you think that they should have no free speech rights?

And is it only me that finds it ironic that the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which is cited as an organziation fighting against corporate free speech has a page on its website with information for non profits about how and why they should incorporate?
http://www.celdf.org/ProgramAreas/GrassrootsAdminTechSupport/tabid/56/FormingaNonProfit501c3/tabid/80/Default.aspx

[BlueJac]

45. This country is already doomed ....

the lobbyist control "our" elected officials. Common sense does not rule in this corrupt country. Torture crimes go unpunished, tax evasion is in vogue, privacy laws are broken, our jobs are shipped overseas, we are in two endless wars, our health care system is broken, our 401k's have been raped, personal income has steadily declined for working Americans, and our tax dollars are handed out like halloween candy to the criminals that destroyed our economy.

[defendandprotect]

92. Even if it's planting the last tree, a race to the end, we have to keep trying . . .

[Prospero1]

46. with rights comes responsibilities

This is what is missing from the implementation of corporate "personhood". If corporations are "people" then they often behave like sociopaths. For example, if I knowingly poison my neighbor's well I'm a sick criminal facing jail time as well as damages, but if my chemical plant or industrial hog farm does it, maybe they can sue me and get some money but the perps in the boardroom walk. I am against corporate personhood but, if we must have it, there ought to be sanctions for criminal behavior that apply to either the decision makers (jail/fines) or the "owners" - the stockholders (fines). If the Wall Streeters who personally profited from the massive fraud that was the credit default scam had been facing jail as well as seizure of their ill-gotten gains, I suspect they would not have been so anxious to carry out their crimes. Corporate personhood is destroying our civilization and our planet!

[wolfgangmo]

81. best response on this subject.

[bobthedrummer]

51. K&R#61

[emald]

53. absolutely, this is the only way to get our country back e/t

[MasonJar]

57. Specifically what can I do?

[defendandprotect]

93. Stop giving large corporations your money, for one . . .

and I guess pressure Obama for a cabinet member representing citizens/consumers --

pressume him to keep corporate interests out of government --

and if there are any anti-corporatate organizations, help and support them --

and help us all look around for better ideas.

[caraher]

58. The real "activist judges"

Amazing that this ever happened...

[earth mom]

60. Until we kick corporate personhood to the curb, WE-the people-will continue to be screwed over.

Wake Up America and smell the corporate corruption that's killing us! :grr:

[Uncle Joe]

61. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[alfredo]

63. Thank you! K&R

[femrap]

66. A big k and r

If Corporations are truly people, then they must pay taxes and then DIE!!! When's the funeral????

[bertman]

68. Proudly recommended by a corporate owner for eliminating corporate personhood.

[FiveGoodMen]

74. Amen

[defendandprotect]

77. Thank you for all the info . . .

Dodn't know any of this . . . and I'm in NJ -- !!!

Party Platform Planks Opposing Corporate Personhood In June 2004, Washington state's Democratic Party became the latest to officially oppose corporate personhood -- a tactic that lends itself to being used in almost any locale. Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Maine have passed similar policies.

Two New Jersey legislative bills would revoke corporate personhood within the state and ban corporate political spending. View either the first or second draft bill in pdf.

[rjwin]

82. time-line

1865
slavery abolished
1865 - until present
the slave master makeovers

[avaistheone1]

85. Thom Hartmann on his radio show has provided a great education

about the history and the problem of corporate personhood.

I am confident our forefathers would roll in their graves lnowing that corporations are treated that way by our courts.

[SUMMERTREE2]

87. If corporations are people

If corporations are indeed persons then the US tax law is clearly unconstitutional for it creates a protected class of people whose tax liabilities are accessed at a lower rate then those of others. If this is permitted under our constitution then I need to start lobbying to have California residents pay just half of the tax rate of Texas residents.

:think:

[defendandprotect]

94. We need to return to progressive taxation, especially on corporations -- !!!

[LatteLibertine]

95. If large Corporations are indeed to be viewed as "persons"

95% of them should be regarded as full blown sociopaths. :(

We are definitely in the grip of out of control Corporatism.

[bridgit]

96. Agreed and so among others: 'WHEREAS, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution...

The people have never granted constitutional rights to corporations, nor have we decreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of the people of the United States.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arcata believes that no corporation should be deemed a person and therefore that no corporation should be entitled to the same rights and protections as those guaranteed only to persons under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arcata supports education to increase public awareness of the threats to our democracy posed by corporate personhood, and the Council encourages lively discussion to build understanding and consensus on appropriate community and municipal responses to those threats.'

http://www.californiademocracy.org/corporations/resource/ArcataRes.html

[Papa Boule]

97. It won't happen but I'll k&r anyway

Most people in the system own or are in corporations, or benefit from corporate liability protections themselves, even if it's just for some real estate they own. They aren't likely to kill corporate personhood.

But it is a nice sentiment.

[philly_bob]

98. Corporations and humans shouldn't have IDENTICAL rights. Start there.

For instance, freedom of speech coverage for humans (i.e., dissent) should be stronger than for corporations (i.e. advertising).

[CLANG]

100. I've said this for many years. It's the only solution!

[seafan]

104. One of the WORST offenders is Monsanto.

Seeds of Deception


Thom Hartman's show today, May 7, had a long discussion of this.


Another informative link


This particular behemoth corporation, Monsanto, is trying mightily to get away with controlling the entire world's food supply by crowding out traditional farming methods and by the destruction and irreversible contamination of heirloom seed supplies.


We must stop this.

[Duval]

106. Amen! Benito Mussolini said

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power". We had a candidate (Kucinich) who understood this and our corporate media helped him fail. Corporate control is becoming more and more obvious. Thank you,marmar, for this wealth of info.:kick:

[santamargarita]

107. Well said...

:patriot:

[BrklynLiberal]

108. Thom Hartmann has always been vocal, knowledgeable and eloquent on this subject.

http://www.athenwood.com/unequalprotection.shtml

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

http://adropofrain.net/2008/12/thom-hartmann-on-corporate-personhood/

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2007/12/thom-hartmann-on-corporate-personhood.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-corporate-personhood-challenged/

[McCamy Taylor]

109. GE has more rights than Jose Padilla. This is just plain WRONG!

[kestrel91316]

110. K&R. Corporate personhood is incompatible with HUMAN rights.