Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Thom Hartmann Slogan --- "Corporations are not people."
Why are Corporations not people, for purposes of the law and our Rights under the First Amendment?

Below is a summary of the Citizens United Case, which is where this controversial slogan got started. According to Talk-Show host Thom Hartmann, it's because of this one case that the "Middle Class" in America is being destroyed. Because this one Supreme Court ruling has opened the floodgates to the Super-rich to bribe politicians in order to reduce taxes on the rich, thus causing the very high national debt and leading to huge spending cuts and destroying programs needed by the bottom 90% of the population -- such as education, health care, transportation, infrastructure, etc.

_____________________________

summary of Citizens United (taken from Google Search -- "What is the Citizens United Case about?")

The Citizens United case, decided by the US Supreme Court in 2010, centered on the question of whether the government could restrict corporations and unions from spending money on independent political advertisements. The non-profit group Citizens United wanted to release a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary, but the Federal Election Commission (FEC) argued that a law limiting corporate and union spending on political ads applied to the film. Citizens United argued this restriction violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, ruling that the government could not limit corporate and union spending on independent political ads.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

The Issue:
Citizens United wanted to use their funds to produce and distribute a film criticizing Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary. The FEC argued that the film was an "electioneering communication" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for such communications.

Citizens United's Argument:
Citizens United claimed that the BCRA's restrictions on their spending violated their First Amendment right to free speech, arguing that they should be able to spend as much money as they want to express their political views, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with Citizens United, ruling that the government could not restrict corporations and unions from spending money on independent political ads. The Court reasoned that such restrictions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Impact:
The Citizens United decision has had a significant impact on campaign finance, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate or campaign. This has led to the rise of Super PACs and other groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

_________________________________

Someone needs to explain why corporations are not "people" -- as intended in the 1st Amendment, which reads: "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."

So "right of the people" and "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" are the words which apply. The "people" are to be free to speak and publish or print (including video/audio recordings, films, etc.) without gov't suppression. The argument used by Progressives like Thom Hartmann is that this freedom is not to be extended to corporations because they are not "people" (as understood in the phrase "right of the people").

Does this make sense? Does it make sense to say that a group, like a corporation, is not "people" and so therefore is not entitled to 1st Amendment rights?



It seems that most "Progressives" are making this claim. That because a corporation is not people it is not therefore covered by the 1st Amendment. Does this make sense?

 

[laughing dog]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

So local law enforcement could break into a church meeting and arrest the preacher who said something the mayor doesn't like, and they have no appeal to the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free assembly?

Or the cops could break up a PTA meeting, or any gathering the Chief of Police disagrees with, to suppress it, and that group has no appeal to the First Amendment?

 

[RVonse]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

In addition to this, the government gives corporations benefits that individuals don't receive. For example, a corporation is taxed at a different rate than an individual and a corporation has much less liability than an individual. How do you make a corporation go to jail for misconduct? Corporations and people are not the same thing and they never have been. But right now we have given the corporation all the benefits (limited liability) AND all of the advantages that individuals have (free speech).

Our Constitution was written to protect individuals and limit the power of the government. That infers that individuals should also be protected from powerful interests as well.

 

[Bomb#20]

Corporations are legal constructions. Legal constructions don't speak. Legal constructions don't suffer. A government enforcing a law "prohibiting corporations from speaking" can only do it by punishing individual humans for speaking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A corporation is a legal construction associated with different groups of people, such as possibly owners, passive stockholders, executives, workers, contractors, etc, and that legal entity (a corporation) also typically has a mission or objective. Any particular individual contracted or otherwise acting on behalf of the corporation is not necessarily acting on their own personal motivation but rather in accordance with the mission or objective of the corporation.

Since there are quite a lot of different types of corporations, some that are merely incorporated for those who share ideological views and such as those that are for-profit strictly business entities and many more, the extent to which a particular individual associated with the corporation may share a view as espoused by a person acting on behalf of the corporation is a spectrum.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

So local law enforcement could break into a church meeting and arrest the preacher who said something the mayor doesn't like, and they have no appeal to the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free assembly?

Or the cops could break up a PTA meeting, or any gathering the Chief of Police disagrees with, to suppress it, and that group has no appeal to the First Amendment?

I get your point, but your examples are strawmen. No one’s saying groups like the Girl Scouts or churches lose their First Amendment rights. The real issue is whether corporations—legal, profit-driven entities—should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s a different question about power, not about silencing group expression.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

In addition to this, the government gives corporations benefits that individuals don't receive. For example, a corporation is taxed at a different rate than an individual and a corporation has much less liability than an individual.

This is an argument that corporations are a certain category of "people" who are to assume some responsibilities that others don't. That makes sense, to impose conditions onto certain categories of "people" in a certain category. But it is not an argument that they are not people. Groups (maybe including some corporations) are still entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights, because they are people. The argument cannot be that they are not "people" --- rather, in some cases maybe they are people who are treated differently, and whose rights are subject to special conditions.

How do you make a corporation go to jail for misconduct?

The corporation can be fined if it breaks the law, and also individual corporate officers are subject to the criminal law. They are not free to commit murder and then say "I'm immune because I'm a CEO."

Corporations and people are not the same thing and they never have been.

They have always been people, just like the local PTA is people, and the Little League, and the Moose Lodge, and the local bingo game club. But there can be special conditions applied to the corporations, or responsibilities. Conditions in return for the benefits enjoyed by the corporations.

But right now we have given the corporation all the benefits (limited liability) AND all of the advantages that individuals have (free speech).

Maybe they should have some conditions applied. But not because they are "NOT PEOPLE". They are people. But it's reasonable to impose conditions onto them. Just like certain individuals may have to accept certain responsibilities if they're in a certain category. What about a "gag order" on a jury, to not discuss the case, e.g. Their free speech is thus limited, but it's not because they are not "people."

Our Constitution was written to protect individuals and limit the power of the government. That infers that individuals should also be protected from powerful interests as well.

Yes, but they must also be protected from other individuals who might do something criminal.

Nothing here gives any reason to pronounce that "Corporations are not people!" -- they too are people. All groups and individuals are people. And even corporations are entitled to certain rights to be protected from criminals ---- such as protesters who would invade and destroy their property, e.g.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A corporation is a legal construction associated with different groups of people, such as possibly owners, passive stockholders, executives, workers, contractors, etc, and that legal entity (a corporation) also typically has a mission or objective. Any particular individual contracted or otherwise acting on behalf of the corporation is not necessarily acting on their own personal motivation but rather in accordance with the mission or objective of the corporation.

Since there are quite a lot of different types of corporations, some that are merely incorporated for those who share ideological views and such as those that are for-profit strictly business entities and many more, the extent to which a particular individual associated with the corporation may share a view as espoused by a person acting on behalf of the corporation is a spectrum.

To add--any particular person associated with the corporation speaking isn't necessarily either speaking their own view or the view of the majority membership of associated individuals to the corporation. Ergo, when we discuss what right to political speech a corporation might have--especially when it is a for-profit corporation rather than an ideological organization incorporated--the speech is at best redundant if it is actually shared by a majority of individuals or at worst, contrary to the individuals' views.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

So local law enforcement could break into a church meeting and arrest the preacher who said something the mayor doesn't like, and they have no appeal to the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free assembly?

Or the cops could break up a PTA meeting, or any gathering the Chief of Police disagrees with, to suppress it, and that group has no appeal to the First Amendment?

I get your point, but your examples are strawmen. No one’s saying groups like the Girl Scouts or churches lose their First Amendment rights.

But those also are "not individual" -- they are groups. Also, "How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous?" The same can be argued about the Girl Scouts or a church or other local club. They are probably not unanimous, and still that club can publish opinions held by some of the members. It is people just as the corporation is people. Protected by 1st Amendment rights.

The real issue is whether corporations—legal, profit-driven entities—should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s a different question about power, not about silencing group expression.

OK, laws can be passed which impose conditions onto them, and also onto other groups or individuals of certain categories. But they're still people! So the slogan that they're "not people" doesn't make any sense.

And we cannot deprive them of the same rights others have only because they make profits. Probably they should be taxed the same. Maybe a business has to pay a special business tax, etc. There can be certain conditions imposed onto certain categories of individuals and groups. There's no reason to single out corporations as some particular hated group which has to be punished because they make profits.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Corporations can have religious convictions, as expressed in their health care benefits, so therefore they have souls, and Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross for them. If they are true to the faith, they will have everlasting life in heaven. Of course this is not guaranteed. I have real doubts about Exxon and 3M. But Pillsbury should get in -- the Doughboy has such a pious expression, you know. And WarnerMedia has a shot. The Trump Corporation -- well, God has a thing for self-righteous but low IQ men of action, so...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are legal constructions. Legal constructions don't speak. Legal constructions don't suffer.

But also ANY group doesn't speak, or suffer. A club, the PTA, a lodge, a church, a philosophy discussion group -- so these also are "not people" if a corporation is not people. The individual members can speak or suffer, but not the group collectively.

A government enforcing a law "prohibiting corporations from speaking" can only do it by punishing individual humans for speaking.

As also any group or club or social organization or school or church. These cannot speak or suffer -- they're not individuals.

 

[NoHolyCows]

But those also are "not individual" -- they are groups.

That’s true—they are groups. But the distinction is not between “individual” and “group,” it’s between associative expression by individuals and independent political power held by a state-created legal entity. Groups like churches or PTAs are protected because they represent the constitutional rights of their members acting in concert. Corporations, in the Citizens United context, are not simply people associating; they are structured legal entities with economic privileges, and their political activity doesn’t necessarily reflect the will of their members.

Also, "How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous?" The same can be argued about the Girl Scouts or a church or other local club.

Yes, unanimity isn’t required for a group to express a collective opinion. But here’s the difference: in voluntary associations like churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation. A congregation might vote on a statement, and members can leave or dissent. In contrast, a corporation’s political spending is decided by executives or boards, often without input from shareholders or employees—and dissenting voices have no say. The analogy breaks down because the internal governance, purpose, and power structure of a corporation are not comparable to that of a small, voluntary civic group.

They are probably not unanimous, and still that club can publish opinions held by some of the members.

That’s correct, and the law protects that kind of expression because it’s a reflection of individuals engaging in civic discourse. The concern with corporations isn’t that some members disagree—it’s that the “speech” being protected is financial power used to influence elections, with no accountability to the public and often not even to the individuals within the corporation. That’s not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

It is people just as the corporation is people. Protected by 1st Amendment rights.

This is the core issue. While it’s true that corporations are composed of people, the entity itself is a legal fiction created by the state, not a natural rights-bearing person. The people within the corporation already have First Amendment rights—they can donate, speak, protest, and publish. The controversy in Citizens United is about granting that power to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s not about protecting people’s speech—it’s about magnifying institutional power, and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

OK, laws can be passed which impose conditions onto them, and also onto other groups or individuals of certain categories. But they're still people! So the slogan that they're "not people" doesn't make any sense.

This conflates two very different ideas. The people within a corporation are, of course, people—and they retain all their individual rights. But a corporation itself is not a person in the constitutional sense. It is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges and responsibilities that individuals do not possess—like limited liability, perpetual existence, and the ability to accumulate vast capital. Saying “corporations aren’t people” isn’t a slogan—it’s a shorthand for the legal reality that corporations don’t have natural rights like individuals. They are legal tools, not rights-bearing citizens.

And we cannot deprive them of the same rights others have only because they make profits.

This assumes that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals by default, which is not how constitutional rights work. Rights belong to people, and courts sometimes extend limited rights to corporations only when necessary to protect the rights of the individuals behind them. The concern isn’t that they make a profit—it’s that they can translate profits into political power, far beyond what any individual could wield. No one is saying corporations can’t function or speak; the question is whether they should be allowed to spend unlimited money to influence elections as if they were individual citizens.

Probably they should be taxed the same. Maybe a business has to pay a special business tax, etc. There can be certain conditions imposed onto certain categories of individuals and groups.

This is true: the law routinely imposes different tax burdens and regulations on different types of entities. But that’s precisely the point—corporations are treated differently because they are different, legally and structurally. If we recognize that they can be taxed differently or held to different standards for liability or disclosure, then it’s reasonable to also treat their political influence differently. Recognizing this isn’t punishment—it’s acknowledging their unique nature and the potential distortion of democratic processes when they’re treated as if they were people.

There's no reason to single out corporations as some particular hated group which has to be punished because they make profits.

This isn’t about hatred or punishment—it’s about preserving democratic fairness. When a small number of wealthy corporations can outspend millions of citizens combined, it’s no longer a level playing field. The concern is not that they’re profitable—it’s that they can convert profits into disproportionate political power, which undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment: to protect free and fair public discourse, not to give more voice to those with more money.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh good lord...

 

[ZiprHead]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

Do that and I might considering siding with Lumpen's argument.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why don't corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights?

groups which have 1st Amendment rights
vs.
groups which don't because they're not "people"
​

But those also are "not individual" -- they are groups.

That’s true—they are groups. But . . .

(i.e., club, church, association, lodge, gang, neighborhood watch, cult, Elvis Presley Fan Club, business, family -- any group not incorporated -- and in some cases they exist only a short time. Even a one-night party, wedding, gathering for entertainment -- maybe a very short life-span, and one "leader" of the group might be imposing something unwanted upon others who are submissive to the leadership of the group) -- these all have 1st Amendment rights, but not a corporation? why?

. . . they are groups. But the distinction is not between “individual” and “group,” it’s between associative expression by individuals and independent political power held by a state-created legal entity.

What "political power"? If this entity (corporation) is granted some special political power, then perhaps it should have some special conditions imposed onto it. But that's also true of an INDIVIDUAL or even NON-corporate group which might have been granted some political power by the state. Whoever (group or individual, corporate or non-corporate) which is granted some political power should probably be subject to some conditions which put limits on that power. If the local women's club is granted some special political power by the state, then that non-corporate club should probably have conditions imposed onto it concerning its possible use of that power. So this still does not explain why a corporation per se is not "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights. By this standard you're also making ANY group into non-people which was granted some power. And most corporations are not granted any special political power, and so they are no different than other non-corporate groups and should be entitled to the same Constitutional rights.

Groups like churches or PTAs are protected because they represent the constitutional rights of their members acting in concert.

No more so than a corporation. How do churches and PTAs represent the constitutional rights of their members acting in concert any more than most corporations? A church or PTA can be dominated by leaders who strongly influence the lower members and exert political influence. Both get in involved in political issues and can act against the wishes of the general members.

Corporations, in the Citizens United context, are not simply people associating; they are structured legal entities with economic privileges, and

What economic privileges? You mean everyone who gains an economic privilege is not "people"? If you gain a tax loophole, or you profit from a government program, is that not an "economic privilege"? Does this mean you lose your 1st Amendment rights, because you enjoyed an "economic privilege" from the gov't? because you took advantage of a benefit others were not eligible for? how is that not an economic privilege? like the loan-forgiveness granted to some students but not to others who borrowed and had to pay it back? you mean the ones granted the loan forgiveness cease to be "people" because they acquired an economic privilege from the gov't which others did not acquire? No, these ones who gained an economic privilege are still "people" and have their 1st Amendment rights.

You're still not explaining what puts corporations into some special category which deprives them of their "people" status and thus makes them ineligible to have 1st Amendment rights.

. . . and their political activity doesn’t necessarily reflect the will of their members.

That's true of many private noncorporate organizations which get involved in politics. The leaders of that organization can easily act against the will of their individual members. This does not distinguish corporate groups from non-corporate groups. The free speech and free assembly and free press rights of both -- corporate and non-corporate groups -- are still guaranteed to those groups. That some are corporations does not mean they aren't people entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as non-corporate groups.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[laughing dog]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

So local law enforcement could break into a church meeting and arrest the preacher who said something the mayor doesn't like, and they have no appeal to the 1st Amendment right to free speech and free assembly?

Or the cops could break up a PTA meeting, or any gathering the Chief of Police disagrees with, to suppress it, and that group has no appeal to the First Amendment?

WTF are you babbling about? Girl Scouts are people. A preacher is a person. A PTA meeting is a meeting of people.

A corporation is ultimately owned by people but no more makes it a person that my owning a car makes it a person.

A corporation can legally bought and sold, but people cannot.

 

[NoHolyCows]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

Do that and I might considering siding with Lumpen's argument.

That’s a really insightful point—it gets to the heart of the hypocrisy. If corporations were truly treated like people, they’d carry the same burdens the rest of us do, including being taxed on everything they earn, not just what’s left after deductions and loopholes.

But that’s not how it works. They’re treated like “people” when it helps them—like when they want to spend unlimited money in politics—but when it comes to paying their fair share in taxes, suddenly they’re just businesses with special rules.

It’s not about fairness or free speech. It’s about power—and using the label of “personhood” when it’s convenient, and discarding it when it’s not.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

A corporation can legally bought and sold, but people cannot.

Up with slavery?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

There are two significant differences between a typical community group and a corporation.
With the community group its leader group is elected by the members, and if the leaders say something the majority of members disagree with, they can replace those leaders.
With a corporation, the members (employees) have no say about who the leaders are, and those leaders can say what they like even if almost every employee disagrees, and can't be replaced.
NOTE: Shareholders are the ownership of the corporation, and therefore part of the corporation, so can do things about the leaders, but they are not members but owners. Also with big corporations there are usually major shareholders who choose the leaders who reflect what they want and believe.