July 3, 2006
WHERE PROGRESSIVES AND REGRESSIVES CAN AGREE:
Corporations Aren't People (Joshua Holland, July 3, 2006, AlterNet)
"Corporate personhood" gives corporations -- entirely artificial entities created by the state -- the same individual rights that the framers fought and died to secure for flesh-and-blood citizens (or at least for white male property-holders, but you get the idea). The doctrine started in England reasonably enough; it was only by considering corporations "persons" that they could be taken to court and sued. But during the 19th century, the Robber Barons and a few corrupt jurists deep in their pockets took the concept to a whole new level. After the Civil War, while many of those same interests were fighting to keep African Americans from being enfranchised, the doctrine took on new weight -- the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was extended to corporations, and Thomas Jefferson slowly rolled over in his grave. The trend of granting more and more rights to corporations continues today.As long as these ideas are embedded in our legal system, talk of cleaning up government -- of campaign finance and lobby reform -- are just that: talk. On these fundamental issues of democratic participation, incremental reform is a road leading nowhere.
Which is why we need bold, populist ideas for real structural reform. I say let's rip a page from Karl Rove's Scorched-Earth Politics for Dummies and offer a progressive Constitutional Amendment that would end this madness once and for all.
That could be as simple as a one-line amendment that rolls back Buckley by explicitly stating that regulating the amount of money donated to campaigns or setting limits on what candidates spend on advertising isn't the same as putting limits on political speech.
But I think something even bolder is in order. I think it's time for a Defense of Human Citizenship Amendment -- language that would strip the "personhood" from corporations and give reformers a fighting chance to establish a true democracy in the United States.
It should be as brief and straightforward as the Republicans' gay marriage amendment:
SECTION 1. Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that citizenship or the legal incidents thereof be granted to corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or trusts.
This would be great policy if enacted, and great politics regardless of whether it were to become law.
An excellent idea that would not only allow the banning of all corporate political donations but provide a justification for not taxing them to pay for a government in which they are not represented, a step which would remove one of the two prime motivations for their lobbying. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 3, 2006 7:59 AM
Be careful, OJ. If we took enough of a leave of our senses and passed such an amendment, it would destroy the organizational foundation on which a lot of lefty groups (and everyone else) survives on.
How many of us really want to sacrifice the Heritage Foundation in order to get rid of the ACLU or the Sierra Club?
Posted by: Brad S at July 3, 2006 8:35 AMGee, fewer corporate-funded special interests, how would we survive?
Posted by: oj at July 3, 2006 8:40 AMThis would also affect nearly every church/nonprofit that organizes under current corporate laws. The big reason why dorks like Joshua Holland want to get rid of "corporate personhood" is so that they can manipulate the terms/conditions in which any corporation can survive and do business. This includes making sure they have no political representation whatsoever.
There was a reason why the ACLU and the AFL-CIO produced Amicus Curae briefs in favor of Nike in Nike v Kasky. This is one of those Thermonuclear options in politics.
Posted by: Brad S at July 3, 2006 8:47 AMThey oughtn't be incorporated if they don't want to be regulated like a corporation.
Posted by: oj at July 3, 2006 9:40 AMCorporations aren't people and no one thinks that corporations are citizens. However, people are people and shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because of the legal form they use to join together.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2006 10:43 AMWould this make the New York TImes Corporation responsible (and subject to regulation) for its actions and activities of its employees which are contrary to "the public good"? Shouldn't they have to file Political Impact Statements laying out all the potential problems associated with a story before they publish? Maybe the tobacco companies can give them some pointers on how to function in an environment where you are selling a product hated by the majority of the citizenry, a product whose sole purpose is to cause misery and lingering death.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 3, 2006 11:58 AM"Person" is not the same thing as "citizen." This isn't even undergraduate Con Law, but something which should have been covered in high school.
Corporations are part of the system of institutions we call civil society, which stand between the individual and the lidless eye of The State. The leftist dream is to brush aside all these things and to leave the people with a single neck to be strangled.
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 3, 2006 1:23 PMHow very libertarian of you Mr. Judd.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 3, 2006 1:58 PMwell said Lou.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at July 3, 2006 2:04 PMAOG:
Yes, only people who pay taxes should have a say in how we're governed. Indeed, taxes are the pre-requisite of good government.
Posted by: oj at July 3, 2006 2:31 PMSigh. If only.
Posted by: erp at July 3, 2006 2:53 PM