Corporations and 1st Amendment Rights

[BlandUsername]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" as described loosely by the 14th Amendment, whether or not individual rights guaranteed by 1st amendment ought to be extended to corporations has been highly debated. In recent years the Supreme Court has decided to eliminate the campaign finance cap for corporations under the guise of "Freedom of Speech." More recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby is now exempted from providing its employees with contraceptive methods, however in this case, with the justification of "Freedom of Religion." Is it really appropriate to continue to allow corporations to do as they are? Legally, I suppose the 14th amendment is ambiguous enough to allow a corporation to be included as a "person", however does this imply what we are morally obligated to allow them the rights that individual citizens have; while a corporation may arguably be a person, it is certainly not an individual.

Public opinion seems to lean towards not, but it can be argued that Corporations ought to indeed receive the same rights that the first amendment protects. I look forward to opinions and arguments anyone can offer.

 

[jamesrage]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" as described loosely by the 14th Amendment, whether or not individual rights guaranteed by 1st amendment ought to be extended to corporations has been highly debated. In recent years the Supreme Court has decided to eliminate the campaign finance cap for corporations under the guise of "Freedom of Speech." More recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby is now exempted from providing its employees with contraceptive methods, however in this case, with the justification of "Freedom of Religion." Is it really appropriate to continue to allow corporations to do as they are? Legally, I suppose the 14th amendment is ambiguous enough to allow a corporation to be included as a "person", however does this imply what we are morally obligated to allow them the rights that individual citizens have; while a corporation may arguably be a person, it is certainly not an individual.

Public opinion seems to lean towards not, but it can be argued that Corporations ought to indeed receive the same rights that the first amendment protects. I look forward to opinions and arguments anyone can offer.

1.Corporations are peaceful assembly of people.
2.Peaceful assembly of people are entitled to the same first amendment rights as individuals.
3.There is no one at a time clause in the 1st amendment.
4.The 1st amendment makes no distinction between for profit peaceful assembly of persons and a none for profit peaceful assembly of persons.

 

[prometeus]

The better question is how are anyone's rights violated or diminished if corporations are not accorded any rights beyond the scope of their intended purpose, be that conducting manufacturing, trade, doing charitable work, etc?

 

[Thoreau72]

In a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act.

It is pure sophistry that SCOTUS offers in its treatment of corporations. Religion? Gimme a break! :3oops:

 

[jaeger19]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" as described loosely by the 14th Amendment, whether or not individual rights guaranteed by 1st amendment ought to be extended to corporations has been highly debated. In recent years the Supreme Court has decided to eliminate the campaign finance cap for corporations under the guise of "Freedom of Speech." More recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby is now exempted from providing its employees with contraceptive methods, however in this case, with the justification of "Freedom of Religion." Is it really appropriate to continue to allow corporations to do as they are? Legally, I suppose the 14th amendment is ambiguous enough to allow a corporation to be included as a "person", however does this imply what we are morally obligated to allow them the rights that individual citizens have; while a corporation may arguably be a person, it is certainly not an individual.

Public opinion seems to lean towards not, but it can be argued that Corporations ought to indeed receive the same rights that the first amendment protects. I look forward to opinions and arguments anyone can offer.

The problem here is WHOSE voice?

I own stock in multiple corporations. That's MY money, my investment. Why does the CEO or the board of directors get to use my money to support say a politician that I don't like? That violates MY right to free speech.

Just as the right to bear arms.. is an INDIVIDUAL right.. (and who here is not going to argue that.. ) the Right to free speech is also an individual right.

And that right ends.. when your right encroaches on my right. So you can use your own money to say what you want.. or whatever.. but you cannot take my money,, and use it for your speech.

You can have all the religion that you personally want... but if you use that religion to get a competitive edge on MY business.. then your right ends.

Corporations are not individuals, they are not people and they are not citizens. And therefore they are not "right holders".. any more than my car or my office is a right holder. A corporation is a designation of property and other assets and is not a designation of individuals.

If it were, then everyone who is a shareholder, would then be liable for what the corporation did.

 

[poacher54]

Corporations are not people they have no rights as a Person. It has been stated that corporation are peaceful gatherings, once again false a corporation is a legal entity for the purpose of conducting business, with the ability to raise money by selling stocks, and enjoying a number of significant tax breaks. As a corporation is not one individual it cannot speak for all its stock holder and directors thus it cannot have rights under the first amendment. If this were allowed what then might they not claim the right to bear arms under the second amendment. but wait wouldn't that be a private armed force under the direct control not of state, or union but controlled entirely by the board, In short a private army. Big Corps have already too much power and influence, they already dictate many aspects in the lives of the Free people of the USA, and the rest of the world. Allowing corporations the rights of the individual in my opinion is allowing the subjugation of the people, which will lead to total autocracy.

 

[Visbek]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Yes.

1) There is nothing about the concept of rights which is categorically limited to "persons."
2) The actual language of the 1st Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's a limit on Congress, and again there is no mention of personhood.
3) I don't see how anyone could fully regulate corporate political speech, without also putting the big kibosh on any other type of organization. E.g. is the ACLU allowed to speak freely, while Pepsico is not?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" as described loosely by the 14th Amendment....

No one is "masquerading." The concept of "corporate personhood" is just a legal classification that companies have certain rights under the law. E.g. the police cannot just barge into a business and start searching the place, they need a warrant. Or perhaps you think it should be otherwise?

In recent years the Supreme Court has decided to eliminate the campaign finance cap for corporations under the guise of "Freedom of Speech."

That really has nothing to do with corporate personhood, because the same rights extend to individuals.

The legal reasoning is that rights are not unlimited, including the right to free speech. Previously, the SCOTUS upheld that the need to protect the electoral system from corruption was a sufficiently powerful interest to allow specific regulation of certain types of speech. The Roberts Court basically went out of its way to assert that in their view, this was not a sufficient justification for many of those limitations. While "corporations" were discussed, they were actually talking about organizations like Citizens United, which is a non-profit lobbying group. The case had very little to do with "corporate personhood," and that phrase is not even mentioned in the decision.

Legally, I suppose the 14th amendment is ambiguous enough to allow a corporation to be included as a "person", however does this imply what we are morally obligated to allow them the rights that individual citizens have; while a corporation may arguably be a person, it is certainly not an individual.

So what?

That doesn't mean the government should be able to search a business at will, without a warrant; or house soldiers in a hotel, without the consent of the hotel's owners; stifle the speech of a non-profit organization; or impose a religious view on a corporation.

I think people just don't understand the concept, and in doing so indulge in their existing anti-corporate mentality.

 

[prometeus]

Yes.

1) There is nothing about the concept of rights which is categorically limited to "persons."
2) The actual language of the 1st Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's a limit on Congress, and again there is no mention of personhood.
3) I don't see how anyone could fully regulate corporate political speech, without also putting the big kibosh on any other type of organization. E.g. is the ACLU allowed to speak freely, while Pepsico is not?



No one is "masquerading." The concept of "corporate personhood" is just a legal classification that companies have certain rights under the law. E.g. the police cannot just barge into a business and start searching the place, they need a warrant. Or perhaps you think it should be otherwise?



That really has nothing to do with corporate personhood, because the same rights extend to individuals.

The legal reasoning is that rights are not unlimited, including the right to free speech. Previously, the SCOTUS upheld that the need to protect the electoral system from corruption was a sufficiently powerful interest to allow specific regulation of certain types of speech. The Roberts Court basically went out of its way to assert that in their view, this was not a sufficient justification for many of those limitations. While "corporations" were discussed, they were actually talking about organizations like Citizens United, which is a non-profit lobbying group. The case had very little to do with "corporate personhood," and that phrase is not even mentioned in the decision.



So what?

That doesn't mean the government should be able to search a business at will, without a warrant; or house soldiers in a hotel, without the consent of the hotel's owners; stifle the speech of a non-profit organization; or impose a religious view on a corporation.

I think people just don't understand the concept, and in doing so indulge in their existing anti-corporate mentality.

That is all nice and dandy, but, BUT only if we cast aside the realities and other limitations that exist not only for individuals but corporations too.

Fact remains that there is a vast difference between "businesses" or for profit corporations and the non-profits, not only in their intended purposes but the representation of the members of such corporations.
The recognition by law of the corporate entity as a "person" is for o other reason but simplicity in handling legal matters and no other reason. This is evident by the fact that corporations are heavily regulated, whereas people with rights are not, even if we consider limitation on rights, right not being absolute. For instance it is far easier and a lot more practical to call the association of 15 million people ABC Inc. than name all those individuals in most matters relating to the conducting of business. The same can not be said when under the present rules the CEO of ABC Inc. donates funds to a political candidate or cause. The funds, are the property of each shareholder and unless they each and everyone of them is consulted and agrees to with the political agenda, it is not only misappropriation but misrepresentation too.
Moreover why would or should any shareholder agree to this when they can freely do their political "speaking" already?
It is not the same with Citizens United, which is an association for the purpose of political influence and the funds donated to it are for that purpose. By contrast, ABC Inc. is not in the political influence business but in the manufacturing of widgets and making a profit from it, which in turn the 15 million shareholders can use as they see fit.

The issue you raise with unreasonable searches is a straw-man and irrelevant to the topic. The property(s) of individuals whether held in common or not still can not be searched without a warrant.

The simpler and easier approach is by answering my earlier question. An honest answer immediately points to who's right are violated by not according for profit corporations the free speech in the political arena.

 

[matchlight]

Corporate personhood is a long established concept. Imagine trying to sue a corporation without it. Not too many people would want to do business with firms they could not sue, if need be. That's exactly why state and federal governments waive sovereign immunity and allow themselves to be sued. Otherwise, you couldn't even have a damn soft drink machine in the county courthouse, because Coke or Pepsi would never contract to put one there.

Hobby Lobby is not a First Amendment Free Exercise Clause decision. It is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act decision. The RFRA protects the right to free exercise further than the First Amendment requires. Congress enacted the RFRA to restore the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause the Supreme Court had followed before it drastically narrowed that interpretation in 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith. The RFRA passed the Senate 96-3.

I don't think Hobby Lobby was even that close a call. The RFRA requires government to show that any action that substantially burdens a person's right to free exercise of religion serves a compelling government purpose, and that no less burdensome alternative to that action was available. The majority of the Court held HHS had failed to do that.

The majority found that a less burdensome alternative already existed, in the form of the accommodation an HHS rule makes for nonprofit religious corporations. Under this accommodation, the health insurance provider must absorb the cost of contraceptives when the employer objects to providing them on religious grounds. The Court did not consider the fact Hobby Lobby operates for profit an adequate reason for HHS to refuse to extend this accommodation to it also.

Hobby Lobby has given the sort of person who views Bill Maher as an intellectual and the Daily Kos as the fons et origo of truth and wisdom an excuse to rail against the evils of capitalism and religion. Forget the fact that not one in a hundred of these leftist propaganda peddlers has read a single page of the decision, or would understand it if they had.

 

[JP Cusick]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" ...

More recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, ...

It is significant to notice that in the Court case above that "Santa Clara County" is not a person and yet it is being treated as a person in Court, just as the "Southern Pacific Railroad" is not a person and yet there it is in Court.

If they were not treated as "persons" then there could not be a case with them involved.

The same with "Hobby Lobby" which is treated as a "person" or else the Court case could not be conducted.

Otherwise if one wanted a law suit against a giant corporation as like "Walmart" then we can not sue the Walton family who owns the majority stock because they did nothing to sue, and even if the chairman of the Board for Walmart did do something wrong we really do not want to sue the one person because the entire Corporation must be held responsible for whatever the Company does. If one person does wrong as in a crime then they can face the law enforcement, but if the entire Corporation is doing wrong then there is no one person as it is the entire group that must be treated as a single person.

As such the corporations have got to be able to speak, which is why we hear of corporate spokespersons, and to speak means that the Company has its 1st Amendment rights.

 

[FaceofBachmann]

The problem with the conservative analysis of corporate status is "personhood" has a particular legal meaning that is obviously unrelated to being an actual human being with rights.

In the context of jurisprudence it means having certain rights and obligations in legal actions. Thus you can sue corporations, and they can sue (assuming they are in good standing and have paid their taxes, otherwise they lose their right to defend themselves -- another distinction between entities and persons). It doesn't means that corporations have all the rights and duties under the Constitution or under state law.

Thus, you can't arrest a corporation and throw it in jail. So invocations of corporations being "peaceful assemblages" of persons makes no sense (unless we had a law that allowed all the shareholders to be thrown in jail for the crimes of the management, which we don't). A corporation can't adopt a child or run for office (though given conservative attacks on campaign financing restrictions, we almost have the latter)

There is no indication that the Founders ever intended business entities to have any of the protections in the Bill of Rights. So the answer is, no, corporations should not be afforded 1st Amendment protections just because conservative take legal concepts literally.

 

[1750Texan]

The better question is how are anyone's rights violated or diminished if corporations are not accorded any rights beyond the scope of their intended purpose, be that conducting manufacturing, trade, doing charitable work, etc?

I don't anyone's rights would be violated by rights that are not afforded corporations... above those already held.

 

[JP Cusick]

The better question is how are anyone's rights violated or diminished if corporations are not accorded any rights beyond the scope of their intended purpose, be that conducting manufacturing, trade, doing charitable work, etc?

The answer is yes - everyone's rights would be violated and diminished - because all corporations are not just conducting business or charity.

Civil Rights groups are incorporated, cities are incorporated, local volunteer fire departments are incorporated, Churches incorporate, and of course even PACs get incorporated, and the list of types of corporations are endless.

The corporations in business really do not have much to say other than advertising their products, but organizations are often created to give people a voice as a group which the individual person simply could not do. Even a super wealthy individual (usually - with few exceptions) can not speak about any subject unless they have a group of many people standing behind any such statements or social agenda or any aggressive action.

If the groups / the organizations / the corporations do not have the 1st Amendment rights to free speech then "free speech" would be effectively stifled and severely limited if not silenced for individuals.

 

[TobyOne]

Corporations are people but not a person. As is the case with the second and 4th (maybe 5th) amendment, rights are recognized for people not entities. So, when a corporation is protected from illegal search and seizure its because people should lose that right simply because they are incorporated.

 

[newpublius]

The better question is how are anyone's rights violated or diminished if corporations are not accorded any rights beyond the scope of their intended purpose, be that conducting manufacturing, trade, doing charitable work, etc?

Corporations can be given a specific scope if desired by the owners and a fixed amount of time to exist, most don't bother and simply choose 'for any lawful purpose' and 'perpetual'

The problem with the conservative analysis of corporate status is "personhood" has a particular legal meaning that is obviously unrelated to being an actual human being with rights.

The first problem with corporate 'personhood' is that the term 'personhood' has caught on when in fact its SHORTHAND for the LEGAL FICTION OF SEPARATE PERSONHOOD. Its a legal fiction because the connection between the shareholders and the corporation is so obvious. So getting rid of this legal fiction, and frankly its impractical to do so, but even if you could, would simply revert to the 'legal reality' of 'privity' ie the actions of the corporation would simply be attributable to those of the shareholders.

Thus you can sue corporations, and they can sue

Indeed, why the legal fiction exists because you can sue the corporation and not provide notice to an ever changing ownership structure (issuing summons to an ever changing ownership class of potential defendants would be impractical)

(assuming they are in good standing and have paid their taxes, otherwise they lose their right to defend themselves -- another distinction between entities and persons).

What's your authority for that?

Thus, you can't arrest a corporation and throw it in jail.

Well, that's a simplification of something a bit more complicated. A corporation by definition is a paper sitting in a file somewhere in the secretary of state for whatever state the entity is incorporated in and at the end of the day cannot engage in any independent action. Any corporate actions are simply individual actions which through the normal rules of master/servant/agency/vicarious liability are those actions which can be attributed to a corporation. So, if a corporation commits a crime, by definition there is actually an individual who can be held criminally liable for those actions (even if the government doesn't actually choose to prosecute)

So invocations of corporations being "peaceful assemblages" of persons makes no sense

Its awkwardly worded, but the fundamental right of association does exist and the federal/state laws classifying those entities are rationally regulating the expression of that fundamental right.

unless we had a law that allowed all the shareholders to be thrown in jail for the crimes of the management, which we don't

Unless they had something to do with it of course, but they can still be held civilly liable, in the context of a corporation, that means liable but limited to the assets of the corporation itself (limited liability). Right now of course, if you were a sole proprietor and had a delivery drivery and he shot somebody dead, you could potentially be held civilly liable, but its unlikely the police would charge you with a crime (again, unless you were actually complicit)

There is no indication that the Founders ever intended business entities to have any of the protections in the Bill of Rights.

The original Bill of Rights, prior to the XIV Amendment, did not apply to state action at all. A state remained free to completely muzzle you. The Bill of Rights restrained federal authority but actually contained a Contracts Clause and it was Contracts Clause that was used to prevent avaricious STATES from going after corporate entities which were seen as the product of contract.

So the answer is, no, corporations should not be afforded 1st Amendment protections just because conservative take legal concepts literally.

Well, there's a consequence to that, isn't there? It means the NY Times doesn't have a I Amendment right to print the newspapers it prints. It means, Michael Moore's corporation, Dog Eat Dog, Inc., didn't have a I Amendment right to make the movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" and it also means that other corporate media like Fox, MSNBC.....movie studios, none of them actually have a right to do what they do. Jerry Falwell might even prevail against Hustler Magazine, Inc.

 

[newpublius]

It is not the same with Citizens United, which is an association for the purpose of political influence and the funds donated to it are for that purpose.

And the Republican and Democratic parties aren't? Who gave them a political monopoly. The I Amendment doesn't just guarantee you the personal right to spout off on a street corner to be heard by whoever is within earshot, one of its most valued purposes actually IS political speech, the right to actually engage in PERSUASIVE speech. In the case of Citizens United, it was an attempt to try to get people to agree that Hillary Clinton was no good. In Michael Moore's case it was an attempt to alter the outcome of the 2004 election away from Bush.

By contrast, ABC Inc. is not in the political influence business but in the manufacturing of widgets and making a profit from it, which in turn the 15 million shareholders can use as they see fit.

And so is GE, but that didn't stop them from owning NBC and for Microsoft to invest millions initially at least in MSNBC and the NY Times is known for media, but check out what else it does (they own the NY Times Building which is like the 4th largest building in Manhattan), they even ironically own, through a corporate keiretsu parts of the Boston Red Sox....

An honest answer immediately points to who's right are violated by not according for profit corporations the free speech in the political arena.

Well, Citizens United wasn't actually for profit, they were a political organization, a 501(c)(4). Michael Moore's corporation actually was for profit and actually made alot of money off of Fahrenheit 9/11 and many of the media giants that we think of today are for profit as well.

 

[newpublius]

The same with "Hobby Lobby" which is treated as a "person" or else the Court case could not be conducted.

The RFRA actually applied to 'persons' and then failed to qualify what it meant by 'persons' and when a federal statute fails to do that, the term person actually has a pre-existing definition in the Dictionary Act 1 U.S.C. 1 which EXPRESSLY includes corporations. Schumer, who introduced the bill, said that's not what he meant, but he's Harvard educated, so....he didn't define it, so....basically he's saying he's incompetent. Congress didn't need to do that of course, they could've defined the statute more narrowly.

 

[JP Cusick]

Schumer, who introduced the bill, said that's not what he meant, but he's Harvard educated, so....he didn't define it, so....basically he's saying he's incompetent.

It would be more accurate to view him as gutless rather than incompetent.

He will make laws that affect the entire Country, but then he does not have the guts to stand behind his own action.

They did what they wanted to do with the RFRA.

Congress didn't need to do that of course, they could've defined the statute more narrowly.

I can not imagine any future Congress or Supreme Court ever defining "person" to exclude corporations, or even the for-profit corporations.

It just can not happen.

If a corporation were not a person then Capitalism itself would be on shaky grounds, because the huge Corporations are the Capitalist.

 

[Objective Voice]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Dating back since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886, setting precedence for Corporations to masquerade as "persons" as described loosely by the 14th Amendment, whether or not individual rights guaranteed by 1st amendment ought to be extended to corporations has been highly debated. In recent years the Supreme Court has decided to eliminate the campaign finance cap for corporations under the guise of "Freedom of Speech." More recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby is now exempted from providing its employees with contraceptive methods, however in this case, with the justification of "Freedom of Religion." Is it really appropriate to continue to allow corporations to do as they are? Legally, I suppose the 14th amendment is ambiguous enough to allow a corporation to be included as a "person", however does this imply what we are morally obligated to allow them the rights that individual citizens have; while a corporation may arguably be a person, it is certainly not an individual.

Public opinion seems to lean towards not, but it can be argued that Corporations ought to indeed receive the same rights that the first amendment protects. I look forward to opinions and arguments anyone can offer.

Rationally, innately, no. Corporations are not people. Legally, however, and as codified in current IRS tax law, yes. The question is how did this come to be? Suffice it to say, it's been a long fight by politicians, attorneys and activist Supreme Court Judges since before 1868. But to understand how this all came about, you have to go back to the beginning...the Constitution itself.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, let's look at the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

People...human beings recognized collectively and by extension individually.

Fast-forward to 1868, the year the 14th Amendment was ratified. Most people recognize this Amendment as the law of the land that officially freed the slaves and made them legal citizens of the United States, but for some that's only half the story. The first part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

Seems pretty clear, right? Persons...born or naturalized in the United States...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Now, let's look at the rest of Section 1:

...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Early in our nation's founding, corporations were chartered entities with a limited existence (they expired if not renewed much as they do now as licensed entities) created moreso to serve the public interest rather than act as pure profit makers. Laws applied differently to corporations than they did to people. But then came the 14th Amendment and politicians, attorneys and Supreme Court Justices continued to chip away at the law until they found the right "wedge" to grant personhood to corporations using tax law as their wedge.

First and foremost, they argued that granting new "rights" unto a specific demographic (or class) of citizenship within society unduly undermined and negatively impacted corporations who acted within that same society. Second, they fought vigorously in every case that came before the Supreme Court that dealt with a corporation to defend corporate personhood using every angle they could think of from "separate and unequal" to tax laws. Our tax code clearly now defines corporations as a "person".

U.S.Code, Ch. 1, Sec. 1:

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

U.S.Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Ch. 79, Sec 7701 - Internal Revenue Code (Definitions):

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person: The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

The rational being that if a "corporation" is created, serves the greater social need (helps societies flourish), is subjected to its laws (corruption, pollution, ethics violations, civil or criminal negligence), and can die, then surely it "exists". Personhood, therefore, was applied to corporations. As illustrated above, the first major breakthrough for such a classification came under codification in our tax laws. The next breakthrough came as free(dom of) speech was extended to apply to corporations by way of unlimited campaign financing. Note there is a difference between "campaign finance contributions" and "campaign finance" in itself. Campaign contributions are made to specific political campaigns or political party affiliates usually by individuals through Political Action Committees (PACs), whereas, campaign financings is directed toward SuperPAC for the sole purpose of running campaign advertising. The sticky part here is imbalance in funding directed towards both PAC entities. Individuals simply cannot match the collective financing corporations are capable of massing to "finance" ad campaigns for a specific political party or an individual candidate. Regardless of which side you fall on this topic, the point is corporate personhood was finally fully recognized via the axiom, "money talks".

 

[Objective Voice]

While I understand some of the logic that is the thrust behind corporate personhood, I disagree with it on three fundamental grounds:

1) Corporations are not "born". They are, however, conceived in the minds of men to serve a specific function or functions - provide a good or service to the marketplace.

2) When a corporation commits and act that ultimately leads to the death of a human being, it is not imprisoned or summarily put to death. The worst that happens to a corporation in such a situation is the corporation pays a fine and a few individuals are held responsible for the death of the human "person". But the corporation typically lives on though it might be restructured or re-organized in some way and if it does eventually die off it does so because the people who run it make such a decision, not because it was directed to through a legal verdict.

3) Although corporations have the ability to influence an election via its campaign financing measures, it cannot vote which is a right bestowed onto "people" per the Constitution.

In these very basic and sensible manners, corporations are not people. They are merely entities created by man/men to: a) provide a good or service to society via a defined marketplace; b) provides a means for potential profit making for the "person" or "persons" who manage the corporate entity; c) provides one pathway for individuals to participate in said marketplace and, thus, becomes a factor thereto in the greater society; d) a vessel to contribute to the betterment and enhancement of the social good via charitable means. But none of this happens without man first bringing the corporate entity into existence.

 

[Karl]

There is no logic behind corporate personhood... it is capitalism (money) run amok. The founders would be spinning in their graves if they knew what the courts have wrought.

Of course any company/business is going to inherit some rights from the person/people that created it in order to function as intended... the right to hold title to property on behalf of its owners, to have certain protections related to that property (search/seizure), to sue and be sued, etc. -- the rights needed to function as a business entity. However, once the concept was put into practice, two dirty things surfaced:

1. Corporate shield. The unscrupulous could use the corporation as a 'front man' to shield themselves and/or their personal fortune (not always) from illegal or dubious activity of the corp. An earlier statement was made that you couldn't sue the Waltons... well, of course you could (or should be able to). They own the company, which makes them responsible for the company.

2. Collective power. This applies in corporate activities in many segments of society, but as seen in the political contributions arena a corporation can take money provided for another purpose (profit) and use it for political activities. Aside from PACs, corporations are not formed for political activity and since they lack the individual right to vote then any political actions should be prohibited them since it is not a right that devolves from the corporations owners/shareholders (who have their own right to vote, and their own ability to contribute to political campaigns or to form a PAC for political purposes).

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Saying corporations existence depends on profits (which is also the ending goal over all else) giving them the same rights as people makes very little sense.

 

[haymarket]

In the United States, ought corporations receive the same First Amendment protections granted to individuals?

Rights belong to citizens of the USA. Those would be individual people - not corporations

 

[newpublius]

There is no logic behind corporate personhood... it is capitalism (money) run amok.

No, it isn't, separate corporate personhood is a legal fiction, a fiction because the obvious connection between the corporation and its shareholders.

1. Corporate shield. The unscrupulous could use the corporation as a 'front man' to shield themselves and/or their personal fortune (not always) from illegal or dubious activity of the corp. An earlier statement was made that you couldn't sue the Waltons... well, of course you could (or should be able to). They own the company, which makes them responsible for the company.

And without limited liability that would be about as large as any business would get. Limited liability can be abused and when it is the corporate veil, the corporate entity can be disregarded, 'piercing the corporate veil' -- but it exists for a very good reason and that's to prevent the imposition of unlimited vicarious liability, without which the disincentive to create larger organizations would simply cease to exist.

 

[newpublius]

Rights belong to citizens of the USA. Those would be individual people - not corporations

So therefore the government isn't prohibited by the I Amendment from shutting down the NY Times? A corporation.....