We Should Amend the Constitution to Eliminate Corporate 'Personhood'

Ted Nace did all of the footwork in his Gangs of America. Its a must read to understand the legal underpinnings that they've been building up.

Thanks for writing the article!

There wouldn't be anything particularly wrong with these precedents except for one aspect of the corporation -- liability protection. Since the corporation is insulated from criminal liability for its actions, there is an imbalance caused by extending these rights. Moreover, if there were no "corporate veil", then there would be no need to extend these rights, since such rights would simply accrue to whichever person or persons were criminally liable for the corporation's actions.

This is the true "corporate personhood" problem -- that the legal entity is liable for the actions of the people running the corporation, rather than the actual people themselves.

I'm gonna disagree.

For example, #11, which I know quite a bit about, was recently used to block a minor candidate from NBC's debate in Nevada, goes quite a bit further, when used by corporations that have impacts on policy.

In the above case PG&E which is a regulated monopoly in California was ordered to allow dissenting voices in their newsletter that was being sent out to all ratepayers. The idea that in this case, an entity that had a right to block dissenting views from being heard, while the entity had been given protected status to be the only source of electricity meant that it then had a monopoly on the news that people received.

With the corporate media lining up in support of this strategy, it meant that litterally no ratepayer would be able to find or hear an alternative viewpoint to what the company put out.

At that time, there was a national movement calling for the development of CUB's or Citizen's Utility Board's where PUC's across the country were opening up to the idea that local electric monopolies should be required to put CUB comments about IOU's statements and agendas.

This decision killed the national CUB movement dead at a time when the public was calling for changes in energy policy. A disasterous blow.

... and Energynet, you have hit on one of the most vital pieces of this puzzle: information. There will never be a day when corporate media carry substantive information on the personhood issue.

So how will people learn what personhood even means? Of all the major issues at this time, personhood is one that will have to be carried almost entirely on web media.

Clearly, the change would require very broad popular support. Three obstacles:

1. Fear of the unknown - What would our world be like without corporate personhood?
2. Ignorance of personal impact - What does corporate personhood do to us right now?
3. Lack of direction - What can each of us do to bring about the change that is needed?

Here on the Vine, we can hold some great discussions on it. But I would be interested in how a mass movement could be started. What a great opportunity for a bloodless revolution that would get certain oppressors off our backs!

"Same Revolution; Different George!"

@ Entelechy.

I'm not sure I understand your argument of liability protection for corporations. A corporation can be held accountable for crimes, just like a normal person can. The difference with a corporation (versus a sole proprietorship) is that the 'owners' or stockholders are not liable for any fees or debts of the company. If I am misinterpreting something, please correct me!

Actually, according to Wikipedia at least, Adam Smith found coporations detrimental to the practice of free-market capitalism. From Wikipedia:

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations criticized the joint-stock company corporate form because of the separation of ownership and management.

The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.

The context for Adam Smith's term for "companies" in the Wealth of Nations was the joint-stock company. In the 18th century, the joint-stock company was a distinct entity created by the King of Great Britain as Royal Charter trading companies. These entities were awarded legal monopoly in designated regions of the world, such as the British East India Company.

Now the second paragraph there sure does remind me of the state-subsidized global monopoly corporatism that we have today. The only way to get back to free-enterprise capitalism is through small online enterprises, IMO.

Oh, yeah almost forgot - definitely good legal argument for corporate personhood, again IMO.

Must have been a Freudian slip - lemme try again: Definitely NO good legal argument for creating a legal personhood out of a corporation, IMO.

To embellish: There are C-level employees of such corporations who can and occasionally even do get held legally responsible for corporate wrongdoings - think the Enron boys.

The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.

However, Sem, fredegrar claims below (as a criticism of corporations) that directors and management are often majority owners of their corporations.

Also, you somehow missed the "Smith's joint-stock companies were regionally monopolistic semi-oligarchies" part. Feel free to show that the vast majority of US corporations are such things. Go on, I'll wait.

To embellish: There are C-level employees of such corporations who can and occasionally even do get held legally responsible for corporate wrongdoings - think the Enron boys.

Which Enron boys? The famously indicted ones were all A-level employees.

The famously indicted ones were all A-level employees.

Is that so? I am shocked, shocked!
So no C-level employees were held legally responsible as far as you know?

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on fred's point about directors and management being majority owners at most US corps...I've heard directors of mutual funds and other 'interested parties' may be on the directors of some corps...so a manager from Fidelity Funds may serve as a director at Home Depot for instance...and the famous Murdoch play for WSJ comes to mind...but again I can't comment to this point on directors and management - I kind of doubt it regarding management, at least on the few places I'm familiar with - not that management doesn't practice kleptocracy with stock options and serial draining of equity through options, but that's another story.

My opnion is that there should be physical bodies that can be fined and improsoned for criminal negligence and criminal wrongdoing. Certainly there is no shortage of such bodies willing to accept stock options, press coverage, yada, yada, accountability is the other side of the coin. When an entity is a corporation, it makes it hard to send to to prison for its misdeeds.

US multinationals easily fall within the definition of regionally monopolistic and semi-oligarchic, there is now showing needed. On the other hand, the vast majority of US corporations are small enterprises, obviously they are neither. Hell, I can incorporate for under 2K in my state! And I'm not much of an oligarch or monopoly.

So no C-level employees were held legally responsible as far as you know?

Legally responsible for what? The entirety of the Enron blowup? Certainly not.

My opnion is that there should be physical bodies that can be fined and improsoned for criminal negligence and criminal wrongdoing.

That seems to imply that you approve of: "... C-level employees of such corporations who can and occasionally even do get held legally responsible for corporate wrongdoings - think the Enron boys."

I'd thought you mentioned the latter as something you disapprove of.

US multinationals easily fall within the definition of regionally monopolistic and semi-oligarchic, there is now showing needed. On the other hand, the vast majority of US corporations are small enterprises, obviously they are neither. Hell, I can incorporate for under 2K in my state! And I'm not much of an oligarch or monopoly.

So... what was your point again?

How did you manage to get from this?

My opnion is that there should be physical bodies that can be fined and improsoned for criminal negligence and criminal wrongdoing.

to this?

I'd thought you mentioned the latter as something you disapprove of.

And while you're at it Can you just mention in passing what your point is? I'm not seeing one here.

I'd thought you implied that punishing C-level employees wasn't the way to go, when they are, in fact, physical bodies. Apparently, you didn't mean it as such, and are voicing no disagreement with punishing C-level employees? I'm trying to clarify exactly what you meant when you brought up C-level employees.

My point with regards to your comments is that you misconstrue Adam Smith's words, and use vague exaggerated descriptions of the modern corporate world that you, as far as I can see, cannot support.

Thanks for clarifying Jack!

Yes, I know I have that tendency (toward exageration)...all I can say is that it's a tool, I guess you don't agree with it's use, that's fair enough.

Yes, I know I have that tendency (toward exageration)...all I can say is that it's a tool, I guess you don't agree with it's use, that's fair enough.

Oh, I absolutely agree with its use. Heck, I use it all the time.

That particular instance was simply ambiguous for me.

Basically, I see no harm in proposing an amendment just to get the issue some attention, if for no other reason. If the social conservative right can propose anti-flag burning and anti-gay marriage amendments, the left should get a shot or two as well, now that they appear to be coming into power.

I think anything that gets the issue attention is a good thing, and public opinion can have influence on the court.
It's been a while since I've studied or taught on this subject, but I think the clerk info came from Hartmann's book.

I think it's equally cliche to belittle invocations of class warfare as being cliche, incediary, or just plain invalid.

Simply bringing up a class warfare stance is fair game, sure. But, using that perspective as supporting "evidence" for a point? Not so much.

I'd argue that corporations don't 'represent' their employees so much as they view them as just another resource, like cash in the bank or inventory on the warehouse shelves. Management will often try to soften this perception by throwing a 'most valued' in front of the word 'resource', but it's clear that the welfare of a company's employees isn't the highest priority. This isn't every company, of course, so I don't mean to generalize, but there's a reason for the history of conflict between workers and owners.

Corporations represent their employees as much as they need to, to maintain productivity. So, it's not a separate priority, no, but it is a priority borne out of necessity.

Unless you get down to little family-run storefronts, I daresay that most businesses large and small see their workers as simply another resource. So, the "workers are just resources" argument isn't a valid one against large corporations, specifically.

Yes, lots of shareholders are 'regular folks' invested via their 401ks and pension funds, but the majority of shares are often held by individuals - board members in particular. (Yes, I'm required to back that up, but I'm leaving it hanging for now).

I'll take that at face value, but my previous point still stands.

I usually don't have the means to exploit them, though.

If you had the means to exploit them, would you still be calling for the prohibition of others' means to exploit them? I'm working off of very little in the way of exposition here, but it seems you might be equally satisfied with closing loopholes as you would be opening loopholes to others like yourself.

I just think people should have equal access to their government, independant of how much money they have to grease the wheels.

Ah, but then why posit the exception of non-profit organizations and labor unions to corporate restrictions?

Equal is equal. You can't have "well, sorta equal, for some people." You certainly can't have that if you wish to argue such things fundamentally. ;-)

Ah, but then why posit the exception of non-profit organizations and labor unions to corporate restrictions?

Well some organizations are more equal than others of course ;-)

I think it's equally cliche to belittle invocations of class warfare as being cliche, incediary, or just plain invalid. (Unfortunately, I suspect this Warren Buffett quote is also cliche, but here it is anyway)... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

The Buffett quote is great, I haven't heard it before, what is it from? I don't think you should conced anything here, as there is nothing cliche about class warfare, at least in the context you are using it.

Ah, but then why posit the exception of non-profit organizations and labor unions to corporate restrictions?

This, I have to say is a valid point, and I don't think there is a need for exceptions, quit the contrary.

Thanks fredegrar

If I were re-writing that paragraph I'd point out that the amendment would limit constitutional rights to natural humans only, but not exclude the possibility of rights being granted to other entities legislatively.

Ahem, that's pretty much the arrangement that brought about corporate personhood. :-)

Explicitly excluding for-profits from the political process would be the only part that doesn't apply automatically to non-profits - and they could be excluded too if the governed so chose.

I don't agree with that. What's the political difference between a for-profit and a non-profit?

Ah, I see what you're saying now. No it's not evidence. Purely rhetorical. Is it bad form to edit articles on the vine once published?

As long as you visually preserve the original text when inserting your modifications (cross out the old text with a < strike > tag, perhaps), modifications are fine.

Bad form only arises when context for past comments is removed without a trace. :-)

Oh, I don't know. I'm probably old fashioned and pollyanishly assuming a resumption of democracy would be a good thing. Maybe life dictated by corporate interests is better.

So... "just because."

Will the experiment succeed or won't it? If the people wish to rule themselves, they better get bothered with the details. I say the argument that 'the people's regulations will be the end of profit and progress' is a patronizing one because I seriously hope it's patronizing. If it turns out the people can't govern wisely, then democracy is a farce.

The grand duel between corporate personhood vs. democracy? You'll have to justify that one.

No, corporate personhood arose from courts overturning legislation that restricted the rights of corporations, based on the theory that these corporations are granted rights under the constitution. If we explicitly say these rights do not apply to non-natural persons, then the lawyers for these entities wouldn't be able to make such arguments. The people's representatives could still choose to grant certain rights through normal legislation, though. I'd be fine with that because it's a lot easier to undo a bad law than it is to overturn a judicial precedent.

Hmmm, okay, now we're getting into nitty-gritty. :-)

It seems that corporate personhood in and of itself isn't as much of an issue for you as is the manner in which it was instituted.

I can see the logic behind that. However, judicial precedent is an institution that has served America, much like legislation, for better and for worse since its inception. A good bit of legislation arose out of judicial precedent.

So, as opposed to amending the Constitution to eliminate personhood, would you satisfied with backing the judicial precedent with a solid legislative foundation?

but as to whether corpratocracy is better than democracy or not, I'd prefer to let the reader decide for themselves. Why is democracy better than monarchy, or fascism, or despotism, etc.? Because - off the top of my head - democracy is a better, albeit far from perfect, guarantor of individual liberties. It seems obvious enough to me to leave unstated.

The problem with that is that, and this will sound like nitpicking, but you haven't fully defined corporatocracy. Why must democracy and corporatocracy be mutually exclusive?

Democracy and communism, for example, exist rather exclusively, but the aspects of the US that differentiate as a constitutional republic (not a true democracy) do not seem to clog the pipes of democracy to an inordinate extent.

You make good points, but I don't think I've heard what your opinion is on the topic of corporate personhood. Do you have one, or are you waiting for an excellent argument to convince you? Just curious. Thanks again.

I think there is merit to the institution of corporate personhood, though only regarding some of its points. As for reasons, for some, it's that I honestly cannot think of good arguments against it.

I'll use energynet's above list as a rubric:

1. Yes: Honestly, I can't imagine any good argument for denying right to due process to corporations. When suing a corporation, for example, there is no good argument within the framework of the US legal system that will support denying due process.

2. Yes: see #1.

3. Yes: again, #1.

4. Yes: I guess the most succinct reason I can give is the potential for abuse of such power, particularly the abuse of information gained from such power. Without even mentioning the overhead required for a corporation to fully cooperate with a spur-of-the-moment investigation, there's the question of integrity of information. Private corporations are entitled to a measure of privacy and secrecy, if only from competitors.

5. Yes: If you have a good argument for denying a jury to a criminal corporate trial, I'd like to hear it.

6. Yes: Should the government be able to seize assets without compensation? There is far too much potential for abuse.

7. Yes: Why should a corporation be allowed to be tried twice for the same charge? I can't think of any arguments supporting corporate double jeopardy which would not apply to individual double jeopardy.

8. Yes: Again, good arguments against?

9. Yes: The reasoning for such a right is same as the reasoning for individual's rights to free speech. Frankly, I don't see much of a difference.

10. No: I don't see any reason for allowing corporate members to circumvent campaign finance limits by donating twice. Of course, this applies to non-profits and unions, too. ;-)

11. Unknown: This one's actually a bit confusing to me. Anyone care to explain it in more detail?

Me neither, fredegrar.

Sounds good to me, upswing.

Blearc, that's a brilliant summary, and a great idea for action! This corporate situation in America has the flavor of tea that has been steeping in Boston Harbor for a couple of hundred years.

It's time to dump it and start fresh.