Corporate Personhood in a Democracy
Quick quiz: Who said this?
1. "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." *
Or this?
2. "Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."*
Hint: The speakers were not Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore.
You may be surprised to hear that the first quote came from Thomas Jefferson and the second from Abraham Lincoln. The dangers corporations presented to our freedom and democracy were recognized long ago, but instead of crushing the aristocracy of corporations in its birth, we gave birth to the corporate person. Perhaps, as thepeoplechoose said in his blog, corporations are not citizens, but they are persons under the law and enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment just as people do.
We have been fretting recently about the corporate influence in the healthcare reform debate. But hold on to you hats. According to Richard L. Hasen, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In an article in Slate, Hasen says that the Supreme Court is about to open the spigot on corporate campaign fundraising. SCOTUS delayed a ruling on the Hillary Movie suit until September, and it is widely** thought that the usual suspects will rule in favor the plaintiffs and against campaign finance reform that curtails corporate funding.
I'm not a lawyer, but personhood is the only excuse I can think of that justifies corporations tampering with elections and legislation. Every election cycle I get boiling mad about this, and then let it go once votes are counted. If those five justices come down on the corporate side this boiler may explode. To save myself, I've been exploring with google and I found an interesting , but puzzling site: Reclaim Democracy.org
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.
Sounds like a proper liberal site, right? They are working for constitutional change on the personhood question. But check out the people behind it:
Our Executive Directors are:
* Steve Spanier, Irvine, CA, and
* Jean-Pierre Swennen, Laguna Niguel, CAOur Board Members are:
* Jean Gore, Boulder, CO -- Past president of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
* Jeff Milchen, Bozeman, MT -- Founder
* Tim Nickles, Jackson, WY -- Independent business owner and activist
* Steve Spanier, Irvine, CA -- National Executive Director and President of our Orange County, CA Chapter
* Jean-Pierre Swennen, Laguna Niguel, CA -- National Executive Director and Director of our Orange County, CA ChapterMuch of our work is done by volunteers dispersed around the country. All chapter organizers are volunteers.
Bozeman MT? Irvine, CA? Orange County, CA? Jackson, WY? Could these hotbeds of far right political activism really be promoting something as sensible as corporate personhood reform? If so, I'd say we liberals are behind the times. The more likely explanation is that a few liberals have survived in these outposts. I am encouraged in any case. I say DOWN WITH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!
*See How Corporations Became Persons published in 2003 by the Unitarian Universalist Association in UUWorld.
**Court raises stakes in anti-Hillary movie
This is great FDR. THIS IS SWEET.
Yeah, tell me how the f....these quotes were taken out of context!!!!!!!!!
But I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site given to all of you from all of me:
I'm not a lawyer, but personhood is the only excuse I can think of that justifies corporations tampering with elections and legislation. Every election cycle I get boiling mad about this, and then let it go once votes are counted.
June 30, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm honored, DD.
I'm confuse, though. What do you mean, how the quotes were taken out of context. Taking them out of context is easily done, but do you have more info about the context? I'd love to hear it if so.
June 30, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No no no FDR. I was positing that a repub reading your blog today would wish to twist the words of both Jefferson and Lincoln--
as they do every Goddamnable Day (blesses himself)
I meant there is no mistaking the old gods' messages here. Clear and Distinct.
That is what I love about your post. These quotes are gems.
June 30, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I thought I had goofed big time.
June 30, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The UU link is well worth the read Dog. Some of my favorite quotes:
The ease with which corporations move the ever-fungible monetary unit across international borders, or hide wealth abroad, calls even more attention to the fallacy of granting 'personhood' to such powerful and ubiquitous entities. If we're going to grant corporations a status of personhood, let's go the distance and grant them citizenship as well. Then we can prosecute them for treason if need be.
June 30, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It terrifies me that we may let it go too long and too far and that there will be no stopping it. I read an article once about the new nonpolar world that some say is coming. Of all the entities that will hold sway - nations, NGOs, terrorists, etc. - corporations were the most disturbing to me.
June 30, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have already let it go too far I'm afraid.
Nothing a good fight cannot rectify, but I don't find there's much fight left in liberals or the left who much prefer the civilized coffee house to the rough and tumble of political warfare. They want a debating society where all the niceties are observed. We'll be waiting forever for that to happen.
June 30, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they are indeed persons, then lets insist that they die, like real persons do. Used to be they had life spans, 75 years or so, then they were dissolved.
Time for most of them to die, I'd say.
July 1, 2009 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooh. Can we raise that age by 20 years or so, Bwak? 75 is much too close to home for me. Otherwise, agreed.
July 1, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The government of, by and for corporations --companies-- I am most familiar with are the Virginia and Ohio companies as I have had to do research in those two states. I believe the Virginia company was operated from London for the crown. Some if not all the Ohio company owners were Virginians. It was fascinating to read the concerns (in Dark Bargain by Lawrence Goldstone) of the companies as the details of the Articles of Confederation were hashed out and re-worked in Philadelphia.
June 30, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to read that book. My library doesn't own it so will have to get it elsewhere.
June 30, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corporate political personhood is one of my favorite piss-offers, and your essay is a good one, but faggeddabouditt. In as much as the corporations own the machinery of government, we will have to learn to live with their dominance of our country.
I thought perhaps Pres. Obama might be amenable to doing something about this travesty, but sadly he, too, is in their thrall.
June 30, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A constitutional amendment is what we need. I'm going to explore the ReclaimDemocracy.org approach and will let you know how it's going.
July 1, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
An amendment to the Constitution requires even more legislative support, which ain't gonna happen. Neither is the other method, a constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since 1789, and would require ratifification by 38 state legislatures. Keep smilin'.
July 2, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The larger goal is to subvert or at least mischaracterize the tenets of democracy. The trend line in this regard is unmistakable and promotes an opposing formulation of governance or control where it isn't applicable.
For the most part we are, as a nation, victims a decentralization of authority. Where theoretically subordinate units, both private and public, introduce alternative goals you create systemic risk where goals conflict.
Certain things are 100% quantifiable and those things must, in all cases, remain under unified control. Out of necessity where some of that control is parceled out to subordinate units, those units must be subject to regulation that enforces consistency across the entire enterprise.
Our system of finance is a perfect example where control has been delegated to a subordinate unit. However, that control was unaccompanied a regulatory scheme that assured the retention of the goals of the enterprise. Instead it devised a set of goals which subverted those of the enterprise and which harmed the enterprise.
For quite a long time now we have been witness to this delegation of authority where the delegation was unaccompanied by a regulatory scheme that assured the health of the enterprise. The all too common phrase of 'dysfunction' is the term we use to describe this.
The industries of finance and health care, as well as others, have been allowed to subvert the enterprise for far too long. Congress has recklessly delegated its authority to these subunits and assured the predictable outcomes that confront us.
The reasons for this are obvious and need not be stated for the millionth time.
July 1, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's been more an abdication of responsibility for the last 8 years, don't you think?
July 1, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has been framed every way under the sun. In the end the result stands in all its glory. Nothing else matters.
July 1, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Dog. This is an issue that is on the back burner (way back) of the public consciousness. Thom Hartmann discusses this issue and its ramifications in several of his books. He is an excellent source for progressive/grassroots ideas and strategies for dealing with this injustice.
This whole mess came about because of a case before the Supreme Court back in the 1860's. The Clerk of the Court (a former railroad exec) added some notes to the formal decision and, boom, new law was written. As you noted in your quote, rights are granted to We the People and We the People bestow privileges on various associations, such as corporations.
A few years back, FOX news was sued for making some false statement during a broadcast. They claimed that even though they are a news outlet they have the right of free speech and are protected. They won.
This single issue is at the core of so much that is wrong with our country. We the People are now second-class citizens. Maybe the 225+ years of this experiment with a Democratic Republic has run its course. There certainly seems to be no will amongst our elected representatives to change the current course. We are, in almost all respects, heading for global feudalism.
July 1, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we should revisit Congressional term limits. The problem seems to be that our elected officials need corporate bribes to stay in power and staying in power is their only goal. In addition to term limits, mandated free air time from network and cable providers would lower the costs of a campaigns.
July 1, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imposing federal lifetime term limits would be a good solution. Probability of it? Zero.
July 1, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have had the fantasy of doing away with Congressional elections altogether. Use a system of universal conscription. At a certain age, your name goes in the pot. Your name gets drawn, you go to Washington. You get paid whatever we're paying the current crop. We have a law that insures your job when you return home. Absolute term limits. Far fewer lawyers. No corporate money. No revolving doors. True diversity. No ruling class.
As I said, a fantasy. But you have to dream it before you see it.
July 1, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful fantasy. You'd have both smart and hopelessly stupid people just as we have now, but eliminate the criminals.
July 1, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, except for the people who would steal pens and paper clips and note pads.
July 1, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fantasy. Just make them accountable for those things. No problem.
July 1, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Term limits are a terrible idea. There are bad elected officials, true, and we'd all like to be rid of them Term limits, though, would (a) toss the good out along with the bad, and (b) force more reliance on both staff and outsiders due to lack of institutional memory, making newly elected reps more susceptible to pressures - including those of lobbyists - along the lines of "Here, kid, let me help ya!"
They are also profoundly anti-democracy. You're going to tell me who I can't vote for? I don't think so...
July 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think term limits were a bad idea, too. But corporations running our government is worse.
July 1, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, curing the first ill may well exacerbate the second.
July 1, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we have term limits for President. That doesn't seem to hurt us. I think 12 years would be enough time for any Congressman, Senator and even Supreme Court Justice.
Besides, you don't really have a choice on who you vote for. The parties decide your choices. How would you feel about making all Federal elections publically funded? Absolutely no personal or corporate or PAC donations. The problem right now is that no matter who you vote for, the winner is probably beholden to someone whose interests do not coincide with We the People.
July 2, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of two obvious reasons for why it is illegitimate for a corporation to be considered a person.
1. Persons have limited lifespans, and thus, have a limited opportunity to aggregate wealth and the power that wealth confers. Corporations have an unlimited lifespan, and thus, can aggregate wealth and the power of wealth to an unlimited extent, which is something inherently subversive to a democratic form of government.
2. Corporations are directed by other "persons", the Board and the Executives. Corporations serve totally the will of those persons, those masters. That would seem to define corporations as slave persons, which is, of course, an illegal status in which for a person to exist. This leads to the clear realization shows that corporations do not and cannot have any will of their own. They are inanimate constructs of the human mind, existing only in contemplation of law, as has been famously said by a SCOTUS justice. That alone should disqualify them from receiving the rights and protections of actual persons.
July 1, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another one which I've had issues with for a long time that I had forgotten to comment about.
The global economy marginalizes the notion of nationalism where companies participate predicated upon rules that may not be supportive of a citizenry.
The global economy creates a situation where companies garner power that is able to be leveraged in a given country but may not result in a financial contribution that is comensurate with that ability.
July 1, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very good point. Corporate transnational-ism, which I seem to recall really got going in the sixties, nullifies notions and feelings of national citizenship and fellowship.
Wealthy, so-called, jet-setters with homes in multiple countries direct much of what transnational corporations do and with seemingly little regard for national interests. Not surprisingly, such wealthy voices, or their proxies, seem among the most loudly jingoistic when stoking nationalist fervor to launch some foreign war of acquisition.
July 1, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
We could use a litle less of enhancing the contestations between nations and regions.
This mirrors, which I'm sure is encouraged by unnamed but numerous parties, the practice here in the U.S. of corporations playing off the states against one another in order to strike ridiculously one sided tax deals to locate factories etc. This is a horrible practice and is a direct transfer of citizen wealth via a stopover in a state treasury. Its a double whammy for citizens who are deprived of the customary taxes and then pay their own taxes on income received from the companies. This is descriptive of how abusive of power the corporations have grown. Companies make other in kind contributions under these deals but you can be sure that in all cases their bottom line is enhanced as opposed to what they might have paid in taxes. Collectively, states have zero incentive to do this so the only answer for it is corruption.
July 1, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, new10!
July 1, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generally, I agree that corporations aren't persons, or in tax parlance, *individuals*, with the rights and obligations that come with being a human being. Everything they are is a creature of statute. So they shouldn't have any rights unless some legislature wrote it down somehwere. And technically, they don't.
here's the problem. in the constitution, people have a right to associate. to join groups, and to speak out. We don't have a problem when Greenpeace gets together to raise money to talk about an issue. Well, a corporation is also...a group of people. When the courts talk about corporate free speech, they are really talking about the first amendment rights of the corporate constituents--the shareholders, directors, management. GE doesn't have right to free speech. GE's shareholders do. And if they choose to elect a board that will pay for ads during a political campaign or "lobby" a congressperson, that's their right.
I think the problem, though, is that corporations aren't all that democratic anymore. So we see a different relationship between shareholder interests and director interesets, versus the relations between Moveon members and leaders. When has anyone ever voted their proxy? do you even know who's on the board of directors??? hell no! you own a piece of Fidelity, which does all the work for you. But Moveone members are more involved, they keep track and make their voices heard.
It's not a perfect analogy, I know. And I'm not defending corporations. Just trying to shed a little more light on the situation.
July 1, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I would have any problem with banning all organized groups from petitioning the government. Corporations, Unions, Greenpeace, or whomever. Such organized groups too often serve to provide anonymity to wealthy individuals seeking to surreptitiously manipulate government.
If only real individual persons, not acting as proxies for other persons, are permitted to petition the government in a visible manner then, at least, we will know exactly who it is behind legislative and policy initiatives. I believe in the metaphorical axiom of sunlight being the best form of disinfectant. Cockroaches don't like bright light.
July 1, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I live in Irvine. It's nice. And both I, and a lot of Irvinians, are Democrats.
Besides, corporations are a very strongly liberal influence on a lot of issues. Barack Obama owes his election to corporate contributions, which skewed very heavily to the Democratic Party.
I'd be careful what you wish for.
July 1, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize if I've offended you. But I'm right that most of Irvinis are not Democrats, am I not?
July 1, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I wasn't offended.
It's split pretty evenly actually, due to the presence of the university, which attracts a certain kind of person, and the fact that it's an upscale suburb of L.A., which attracts a different certain kind of person. I suppose the overall picture is mildly Republican; Republicans do well in local elections. But local politics is intensely personal and, well, local. I'm sure Obama carried the city handily.
Of course, I live in the university area, so it's all overeducated pinko liberals where I live. :)
July 1, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear Irvine and I think ORange County which screams right wing crystal cathedral to me. Thanks for setting me straight.
July 1, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post. Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights is a very interesting read on this. A signficant chapter can be found at http://www.athenwood.com/theft.shtml. In it, he argues that a Supreme Court Reporter's error is responsible for corporate personhood. Fascinating stuff. You might also enjoy watching We, the Real People, at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=700191365143061873&ei=YbJLSqiSG9XWlQeY2Pj0Bw&q=%22Unequal+Protection%22
July 1, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And part one of We, the Real People. Couldn't put another link in the post. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4815864158294920548&ei=yrhLSub1AsS7lQf1ufSlBw&q=%22We+the+Real+People%22
July 1, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the tips, amike. I've requested the book from my library.
July 1, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink