5 ms·

Interesting article. I was always under the impression that corporations weren't "persons" but "entities". I have seen several references to "natural persons"

• ashley 17y ago
  The funny thing with personhood conferral is that it was an obiter dictum (sort of non-binding comment made by the judges that is not part of the official decision) that was interpreted by the court stenographer in the 19th century Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (whose case was ruled in favor of Southern Pacific on a technicality rather than any explicit ruling on the personhood of corporations). So now with Thursday's Citizens United ruling, it will be interesting to see whether corporations will have to be federally chartered and thereby be revoked of constitutionally protected status or whether this case opens the door to potentially unfettered powers granted to corporations, now that campaign finance is protected "free" speech under the 1st Amendment.
  • hga 17y ago
    NO NO NO! The Citizens United case has had absolutely no change to "campaign finance", and the law and case law about campaign finance "reform" has always recognized its status as political speech. What Citizens United has done is to return to "corporations" (including the non-profit Citizens United that successfully sued the FEC) the rights to free speech and freedom of association they enjoyed prior to Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McCain-Feingold. No longer can governments censor (in the real meaning of the world) their speech in elections. In both these examples, campaign finance and election period speech, there are still "reasonable" regulations, like various sorts of disclosure (although Thomas disagreed, based on the nasty retaliation that's been seen lately against people making small contributions to causes that many don't like; I expect this will be revisited after the first murder that comes from this disturbing trend). For those who think this is a bad thing, I say that the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not government censorship of the speech you don't like. (Need I mention the slippery slope the latter presents?)
    • ashley 17y ago
      You're right to say that Citizen United does not change how we view campaign finance as protected speech for humans. I definitely was wrong and unclear on that point, but I respectfully disagree about the implications of the Citizens United ruling: my point is that this ruling sets the stage for allowing undue power to corporations, both non-profit and for-profit. Corporations are not living beings with unalienable rights, so we should not have worried that limiting their speech would have implications for us human beings. For Scalia being such a conservative reader of the law, he certainly took a highly judicial activist position in this ruling. excerpted from the article: In vivid contrast, the majority overruled a 19-year-old precedent (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) that had lambasted the corporation, when it entered the political arena, because of ”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.” The problem with treating corporations as if they have a "right" to free speech and freedom of association is that they have a disproportionate amount of influence arising from their sheer size and aggregated wealth. We have other mechanisms to ensure that size and wealth do not override the voices of the small and poor in elections (look at how the Senate is constructed versus the House or how we have the electoral college to ensure that wealthier coastal states do not decide presidential elections). And also, the fact that we grant any rights to corporations at all arises from a court stenographer's foot-note that later opened up loopholes for clever (although might I add shortsighted) lawyers in subsequent cases that eventually snowballed into granting rights to this nebulous entity. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent to the Citizens United ruling, "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” And yet, we worried that limiting the financial power of corporations will potentially infringe upon OUR (human) 1st Amendment rights. That is the problem for me. We created the corporate entity like a machine to serve our purposes; it does not exist with unalienable rights as we human beings do. Who donates the most to campaigns, 501(3)(c) non-profits and charities or Fortune 1000 corporations whose explicit purpose is to generate profits for stakeholders?
      • 17y ago