Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

You can't write your own Constitution
or your own 1st Amendment.

. . . corporations (or other groups) should not have the same rights as individual people, and . . .

Yes they should have basic 1st Amendment rights, just as the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case. They should have these basic rights, because these rights are guaranteed to "the people" as the Amendment says in its wording "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to . . ." etc. It's because of these words that corporations (and all groups of people) do have 1st Amendment rights. Nothing in the wording suggests that "the people" means only individuals separately rather than groups of people, or only individuals to the exclusion of groups of people. The word "individual" or "individuals" does not appear in the 1st Amendment. Nor is there anything in the CONTEXT of the 1st Amendment which suggests that it applies only to individuals to the exclusion of groups of people.

. . . not have the same rights as individual people, and generally that is the actual case.

The phrase "individual people" does not appear in the 1st Amendment. If you want to amend the Constitution to have it say "individual people" you can start a crusade to change the wording.

And no, that exclusion -- excluding groups -- generally never was the actual case and obviously is not the actual case now, since the Court has ruled specifically now that corporations and labor unions (groups) do have 1st Amendment rights to free speech and free press, etc. And there is no previous Supreme Court ruling which said otherwise. There were at least 2 cases in the 1970s which also said the same as the Court did in Citizens United (2010). And no previous Supreme Court cases ever ruled to the contrary, saying groups could be "prohibited" from producing political propaganda (or "electioneering communications" etc.). You cannot name any such case. The word "prohibit" appeared in the FEC ruling in 2008, which is the first time ever that a federal agency announced "prohibition" of political speech or of political propaganda based on federal law. The earlier Courts only ruled that campaign contributions to political candidates were limited, or "political spending," which is still the case and was not changed by the 2010 decision, though "political spending" is ambiguous. But "prohibition" of political speech or "prohibited" speech was never upheld in any earlier Court ruling.

You are wrong to insinuate that groups were ever prohibited (by federal law) from publishing political propaganda, which the FEC did to Citizens United in 2008. Rather, there were cases which specifically said this violated the 1st Amendment rights of corporations (i.e., groups).

("Groups" are not the same as "corporations" -- but the intended meaning is that ALL groups are protected by the 1st Amendment, and in these cases the "groups" threatened happened to be corporations, so that the wording always was "corporations" rather than "groups" (meaning in this case that specifically corporations and labor unions cannot be singled out as having less 1st Amendment rights than other groups) -- and the wording "groups" could have been used and would have been essentially the same, in the meaning, or in terms of the practical outcome or enforcement.) The word "groups" should be used, to get it precisely correct.

. . . not have the same rights as individual people, and generally that is the actual case.

Not only is that NOT the actual case, but so far no one else here has said that all groups are not people and have no basic 1st Amendment rights.

Everyone else has assumed that it's only corporations in particular which are "not people" while other groups are people and do have 1st Amendment rights. I.e., it's assumed (so far by everyone else) that there's a difference between CORPORATIONS vs. GROUPS of people (i.e., groups in general) -- such that the latter are still "people" with 1st Amendment rights, whereas corporations (as an exception = special category) are "not people" and do not have 1st Amendment rights. Meaning there is some basic difference between corporations and groups, such that "corporations are not people" but other groups are still people even though they're GROUPS of people.

So the "not people" dogmatists need to get their story straight, and take a moment to think instead of just repeating their chant over and over again like religious cult disciples who drank the Kool-Aid -- and for once question their dog-whistle slogan "corporations are not people," trying to ask what it really means instead of just being driven by their impulse like the Pavlovian dog which knows nothing other than to salivate when it hears the bell ring.

To say that ALL GROUPS are not people is a small step toward rehabilitation, toward thoughtfulness and away from your dog whistle. But it's still mistaken because the enforced law in practice (except in 2002-2008) always was that groups also are "people" and do have 1st Amendment rights, with this being upheld once again in 2010. Pretending that earlier Courts said otherwise is a falsehood.

There was never any PROHIBITION of political speech or denial of 1st Amendment free speech rights by the federal gov't until 2008 (or 2002 with the campaign reform act).

 

[bilby]

You can't write your own Constitution
or your own 1st Amendment.

According to the 1st Amendment, you absolutely can wrote your own constitution. (Not that anyone would be required to comply with it; But they can't stop you from writing it, nor from asking others to support its adoption).

 

[ZiprHead]

E.g., a softball team is not people a person, a school class is not people a person, a beach party is not people a person, a sewing club is not people a person, a crowded marketplace is not people a person, a marching band is not people a person, a family is not people a person, a tribe is not people a person, a work crew is not people a person, a platoon or squad is not people a person. Etc.

You can't even get your own stupid argument straight in your own head. A corporation is not a person and should not get the rights of personhood.

And hiding idiocy behind a wall of text doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Ninja'd by bilby.

 

[Elixir]

So everyone here agrees:

"Groups are not people"

Have you had a recent blow to the head?

Nobody here agrees:
"Groups are not people"


Everyone here (except you) agrees:
"A group is not a person"

I’m going with the “blow to the head” hypothesis.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

E.g., a softball team is not people a person, a school class is not people a person, a beach party is not people a person, a sewing club is not people a person, a crowded marketplace is not people a person, a marching band is not people a person, a family is not people a person, a tribe is not people a person, a work crew is not people a person, a platoon or squad is not people a person. Etc.

You can't even get your own stupid argument straight in your own head. A corporation is not a person and should not get the rights of personhood.

And hiding idiocy behind a wall of text doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Ninja'd by bilby.

Of course corporations are not living breathing people, but they do need to be an entity that can be held liable for negligent acts, and thus be granted personhood for those reasons.

Hypothetical: GM builds a car with a defect that ends up getting a dozen people killed. Lawsuits are filed against the corporation, payouts are made, and the corporation, along with all of its employees, subsidiaries, vendors, etc. goes on.

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job, nor would anyone in higher, middle, or lower management. By the time you get down to who actually screwed up, you may be looking at a small team of inspectors; and what is that small team of inspectors worth? Relatively speaking, there's not much you're going to get from them unless some insurance company insures every single person with an individual policy, which will absolutely never ever happen.

All that said, executives may be held criminally liable when certain wrongful acts are knowingly engaged in (see Enron).

If you want to say that corruption is allowed to run rampant far too often in large corporations, you'll get no argument from me. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether corporations should be granted personhood and my answer to that is yes due to the foregoing.

 

[Elixir]

Of course corporations are not living breathing people, but they do need to be an entity that can be held liable for negligent acts, and thus be granted personhood for those reasons.

That's a non-sequitur. Sure, groups are an entity, but there's no reason whatsoever that "personhood" follows from that. A pack of wild dogs is an entity, but few would argue that it's a person. Entities other than "persons" can be held accountable.

 

[bilby]

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job

So we keep hearing; But is it true?

Board members of large corporations are very well paid. That pay might nevertheless need to increase; But if that's the price of requiring them to think about the impacts their corporation has on something other than shareholder value, perhaps it's a price worth paying.

Certainly it's a conversation worth more than the dismissive "no one in their right mind would take the job" stated as though it were a physical law.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

step right up -- fresh people for sale!

"I'll take a dozen!"

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

Up with slavery?

It's not true that all corporations can be bought and sold and that people can't ever be bought and sold (legally). These are both incorrect, because there are exceptions to both.

Some corporations cannot be bought and sold:
Google Search:

Some corporations cannot be sold because their structure or local regulations prevent the transfer of ownership, such as certain types of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) in Mexico where share transfers are restricted or prohibited. Other corporations may be indirectly restricted from sale due to ownership agreements or the nature of their business, even if the sale of the corporate entity itself isn't illegal.

So it's not true that all corporations can be bought and sold -- it depends on the gov't or jurisdiction -- some corporations cannot be legally bought and sold because there are laws which simply prevent it for some cases. Each state/nation/jurisdiction defines its own conditions, and in some cases the sale is prohibited. So it's not a fundamental feature of corporations that they can be bought and sold, though they usually can be.

And, in some cases people are bought and sold legally.

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

Yes they can be in some cases. Professional sports teams routinely buy and sell the players, if this is convenient for business.

It's not that people cannot be bought or sold -- they can be. It's just rare, not usually a convenient way to obtain the workers needed. But it does happen in some cases. There's nothing wrong with it as long as there's no fraud and the people being bought or sold are free to make their own choice, not being forced against their will.

It can be argued that USUALLY a corporation can be bought or sold whereas people usually cannot be. But since there are exceptions, this cannot be a basic rule distinguishing corporations from people. Also, the same is true about businesses generally -- they can be bought and sold. So this is not specifically about the difference between corporations and people, but about the difference between businesses and people. And so it's an argument that businesses are not people rather than an argument that corporations are not people. Not all businesses are corporations. And the noncorporate ones can be bought and sold just like the corporations can be.

So again the dogmatists preaching "corporations are not people" cannot explain what it is that makes corporations "not people" -- they can't say what is a feature of all corporations which makes them "not people" and distinguishes them from NONcorporations. On the other hand, the rule that "all groups are people" is very clear and can be explained: Any group of people has 1st Amendment protection, for basic rights such as free speech.

No kind of group is denied its Constitutional rights simply by someone branding it as "not people" -- if you want to censor someone, like the FEC did to Citizens United Inc., if you want to silence a political opponent, ban them from producing or publishing something controversial or political, you're probably wrong, but if you do have a serious case against them, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they're a threat to public safety, or maybe that their propaganda is slanderous or treasonous or advocates something criminal -- there are ways to get something dangerous banned, but you have a much higher burden of proof than simply chanting a meaningless slogan like "corporations are not people."

Up with slavery?

Being owned is not the same as slavery. There's nothing inherently wrong about owning something, even "owning" humans (buying and selling them), as long as there's nothing involuntary inflicted on them and no one is defrauded. It's the abrogation of free choice which makes it slavery and inherently wrong.

Anyone who is paid might be pressured into doing something s/he doesn't want to do. But it's a free choice, so it's not "slavery." That they're paid, as an enticement, doesn't make it slavery or involuntary. A "dirty job" is legitimate because there's a need for the undesirable work to be done. It's not involuntary, but a free choice to accept (or reject) the payment as compensation for the unpleasant part.

Even if the worker is owned, like a professional athlete who is bought or traded, or is made to feel like a piece of property/merchandise that's bought or sold or traded, it's still a free choice by that worker to be owned or dominated by the organization which does the buying and selling as a convenient way to do the business and move the workers/players around here or there as needed. So as long as it's a voluntary choice and the worker is free to quit, it's not "slavery."

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Of course corporations are not living breathing people, but they do need to be an entity that can be held liable for negligent acts, and thus be granted personhood for those reasons.

That's a non-sequitur. Sure, groups are an entity, but there's no reason whatsoever that "personhood" follows from that. A pack of wild dogs is an entity, but few would argue that it's a person. Entities other than "persons" can be held accountable.

You seem more concerned about the word "person" rather than the actual substance of why that word is used and what purpose it serves. I believe a different word or term should've been used than "person", but it wouldn't have changed anything. OTOH, maybe assigning the word "person" denotes legal language that made it necessary to use that word instead of something else.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job

So we keep hearing; But is it true?

Board members of large corporations are very well paid. That pay might nevertheless need to increase; But if that's the price of requiring them to think about the impacts their corporation has on something other than shareholder value, perhaps it's a price worth paying.

Certainly it's a conversation worth more than the dismissive "no one in their right mind would take the job" stated as though it were a physical law.

Okay, look at it a different way e.g. class action suits (or any other high digit suit). Who's going to payout to the plaintiffs if not the entity?

Let's say the CEO for Megacorp makes $20 million per year. Indeed, he's very wealthy, but he'll be flat broke by the time settlement, or even god forbid trial happens. Then there's no compensation to the plaintiff(s).

There are lots more scenarios to go into, but I don't think that tedious and individual breakdowns are productive. You seem to not understand that holding a private person responsible for e.g negligence hurts the plaintiffs. Also, it is highly unlikely to be able to prove personal culpability when so many people are involved in making decisions over a long period of time that may have led to the actionable incident.

 

[Gospel]

Welp, you better hope someone’s alive and willing to collect, because if a corporation/person deliberately sells a product that costs you your life, they’ll just keep rolling along. And if the settlements end up being smaller than the profits (which they usually are, since costs just get passed on to consumers, see the tobacco industry), then the system actually rewards them for killing people.

 

[Playball40]

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job

So we keep hearing; But is it true?

Board members of large corporations are very well paid. That pay might nevertheless need to increase; But if that's the price of requiring them to think about the impacts their corporation has on something other than shareholder value, perhaps it's a price worth paying.

Certainly it's a conversation worth more than the dismissive "no one in their right mind would take the job" stated as though it were a physical law.

Okay, look at it a different way e.g. class action suits (or any other high digit suit). Who's going to payout to the plaintiffs if not the entity?

Let's say the CEO for Megacorp makes $20 million per year. Indeed, he's very wealthy, but he'll be flat broke by the time settlement, or even god forbid trial happens. Then there's no compensation to the plaintiff(s).

There are lots more scenarios to go into, but I don't think that tedious and individual breakdowns are productive. You seem to not understand that holding a private person responsible for e.g negligence hurts the plaintiffs. Also, it is highly unlikely to be able to prove personal culpability when so many people are involved in making decisions over a long period of time that may have led to the actionable incident.

Corporations were ALREADY an 'entity' before CU. CU was completely unnecessary and opened the door for a lot of BS

 

[bilby]

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job

So we keep hearing; But is it true?

Board members of large corporations are very well paid. That pay might nevertheless need to increase; But if that's the price of requiring them to think about the impacts their corporation has on something other than shareholder value, perhaps it's a price worth paying.

Certainly it's a conversation worth more than the dismissive "no one in their right mind would take the job" stated as though it were a physical law.

Okay, look at it a different way e.g. class action suits (or any other high digit suit). Who's going to payout to the plaintiffs if not the entity?

Let's say the CEO for Megacorp makes $20 million per year. Indeed, he's very wealthy, but he'll be flat broke by the time settlement, or even god forbid trial happens. Then there's no compensation to the plaintiff(s).

There are lots more scenarios to go into, but I don't think that tedious and individual breakdowns are productive. You seem to not understand that holding a private person responsible for e.g negligence hurts the plaintiffs. Also, it is highly unlikely to be able to prove personal culpability when so many people are involved in making decisions over a long period of time that may have led to the actionable incident.

Americans really do think money is all important, don't they?

Payout, schmayout. Someone should go to jail. And that someone should be the CEO.

That way, next time someone says "We can all get bigger bonuses if we let our product kill a few people, because fixing it will cost more than the compensation we will wind up paying", the guy at the head of the table has a motive to say "Fuck, no. That would get me sent to federal prison!".

There are plenty of injuries for which there is no sum of money that would adequately compensate me. Death being the most bleeding obvious. If you kill me, I really don't give a crap how much money your corporation gives my surviving family; I want the human person who was responsible for it to never see daylight again except through a set of steel bars.

With great power comes great responsibility. If you have the authority to tell the company how to act, you are responsible for the actions it takes.

If that scares people away from wanting to become a CEO, then good. They should be scared. It's not a responsibility they should be able to take lightly.

And there's no reason why the corporation cannot be financially responsible, while the CEO remains legally responsible. The corporation can pay the class action money, AND the CEO can go turn big rocks into little rocks for the next thirty years.

 

[Elixir]

OTOH, maybe assigning the word "person" denotes legal language that made it necessary to use that word instead of something else.

Certainly, if one wishes to grant groups the ability to dominate people, that would be prerequisite. If, OTOH, one wished to grant individuals equal voice, then granting groups “personhood” is the kiss of death.
As we are seeing.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The alternative is to hold high ranking board members personally liable. No insurance company is going to insure those individuals, which means no one in their right mind would take the job

So we keep hearing; But is it true?

Board members of large corporations are very well paid. That pay might nevertheless need to increase; But if that's the price of requiring them to think about the impacts their corporation has on something other than shareholder value, perhaps it's a price worth paying.

Certainly it's a conversation worth more than the dismissive "no one in their right mind would take the job" stated as though it were a physical law.

Okay, look at it a different way e.g. class action suits (or any other high digit suit). Who's going to payout to the plaintiffs if not the entity?

Let's say the CEO for Megacorp makes $20 million per year. Indeed, he's very wealthy, but he'll be flat broke by the time settlement, or even god forbid trial happens. Then there's no compensation to the plaintiff(s).

There are lots more scenarios to go into, but I don't think that tedious and individual breakdowns are productive. You seem to not understand that holding a private person responsible for e.g negligence hurts the plaintiffs. Also, it is highly unlikely to be able to prove personal culpability when so many people are involved in making decisions over a long period of time that may have led to the actionable incident.

Corporations were ALREADY an 'entity' before CU. CU was completely unnecessary and opened the door for a lot of BS

Citizens United is a completely different issue than what I've addressed, which means I probably should've read earlier posts before running my mouth on where the conversation was going.

 

[Elixir]

I still don’t see any definition of “personhood” that is a prerequisite for an entity to be accountable.

 

[bilby]

I still don’t see any definition of “personhood” that is a prerequisite for an entity to be accountable.

Here you go:

A person is an entity that you can punish with imprisonment.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"corporation" vs. "community group"

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, . . .

Not necessarily. The group might not even have a "leader group," or if it does, the leaders might not be elected by anyone. There's no law saying all groups must have elected leaders. Some groups might not have leaders at all.

But assuming most do, the members of a very large group generally have much less influence on who the leaders are.

. . . 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.

No, if the group is very large it's much more difficult for the leaders to be replaced. And in a small corporation it's very easy for dissenting members to replace those leaders. This does not distinguish a "community group" from a corporation. Most corporations are small, and for these the leaders are much more subject to the sentiments of the members. It's not about being a corporation, but about being large or small.

With a corporation, the members (employees) have no say about who the leaders are,

But that's true also of any business, many of which are not corporations. So this is not distinguishing corporations from community groups, but is distinguishing businesses from community groups.

What happened to the "significant differences between a typical community group and a corporation" which this pretends to be telling us? This is not answering how "corporations" differ from community groups.

What we need (and are not getting from anyone) is an explanation how "corporations" are different than other groups such that they are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights, whereas all other groups (NONcorporations) are "people" and do have 1st Amendment rights.

With a corporation . . . those leaders can say what they like even if almost every employee disagrees, and can't be replaced.

Again this is true about all businesses, not just corporations. But also, this is usually not true of small corporations, where the leaders can't always say what they like if almost every employee disagrees. In a small group it's much more difficult for "leaders" to say or do what they like in disagreement to almost every employee or member.

Nothing here is telling us what makes "corporations" different than noncorporations such that the corporations are "not people" without 1st Amendment rights, while the noncorporations are people and do have 1st Amendment rights.

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.

This also does not distinguish corporations from noncorporations, but does confirm that large groups are more likely to disregard what members/employees say, because they are less democratic, and the leaders of a large group have less regard for members in the group who disagree with them.

So, despite the pretense of saying how corporations differ from "community groups," this again fails to explain how corporations per se are special in some way that makes them "not people" and yet all other groups are people; and why corporations don't have 1st Amendment rights even though all other groups do have 1st Amendment rights.


This is about
"prohibition" of political speech.

The slogan "corporations are not people" refers to the election reform law of 2002, and the enforcement of it by the FEC, by which corporations are singled out (or rather, corporations and labor unions are singled out) for special treatment, which is that they are expressly PROHIBITED from sponsoring political speech -- or "electioneering communications" during election periods.

The FEC issued rules stating that it prohibits "corporations" and "labor unions" from doing "electioneering communications" based on the 2002 election reform law. Here are the FEC's words of prohibition of this political speech:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

SUMMARY:

The Federal Election Commission promulgates new rules regarding electioneering communications, which are certain television and radio communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and that are publicly distributed to the relevant electorate within 60 days prior to a general election or within 30 days prior to a primary election for Federal office. The final rules implement a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) that adds to the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) new provisions regarding electioneering communications. BCRA defines “electioneering communications,” exempts certain communications from the definition, provides limited authorization to the Commission to promulgate additional exemptions, and requires public disclosure of specified information regarding who made the electioneering communication and its cost. Additionally, BCRA prohibits corporations and labor organizations from making electioneering communications, and the final rules also implement this prohibition. Further information is provided in the Supplementary Information that follows.

This is blunt straightforward censorship which shouldn't be so difficult to recognize. The law prohibits this political speech, and the FEC issued rules to implement this prohibition.

Why can't someone explain what it is that puts "corporations" and "labor organizations" into a special category, separate from other groups, so that their freedom of political speech is to be curtailed? How are electioneering communications not an example of political speech? or free speech? How is this not an abridgment of free speech rights?

So far there's nothing which distinguishes corporations as being "not people" and not entitled to 1st Amendment rights, as opposed to noncorporations which are people and do have 1st Amendment rights.

The specific rights are not all identical for everyone, for every imaginable person or group. There can be special regulations on corporate entities, or others which are special cases. But all groups and individuals are entitled to the basic 1st Amendment rights. Just because there might be certain special conditions for special cases does not mean anyone's basic rights can be denied.

When the gov't PROHIBITS political speech, that crosses the line. Citizens United did not overturn all the political spending limits -- it left much of it the same as before. But it overturned the "prohibition" of political speech to protect the basic 1st Amendment rights guaranteed to all.

 

[laughing dog]

And, in some cases people are bought and sold legally.

. Not in the USA after December 1865 when slavery was outlawed.

You persist in sports teams “buying and selling players” but they do not own the players. Players do not have to work for the new “owners”: slaves do. Things and nonhuman animals are owned: people are not.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do corporations have social security numbers?

translation: only people have social security numbers, so anything that does not have a social security number is "not people."

There are some people (U.S. citizens) who don't have a social security number (maybe mostly children). So these citizens are "not people"?

Also, what about before social security, back before the 1930s. No one had a social security number, so therefore there were no people prior to social security? That's probably false.

So, not having a social security number cannot be what makes corporations "not people."

Anyway, the premise of "corporations are not people" is that other groups (NONcorporate) are people, and it's only corporations which are "not people." And yet other groups also have no social security number. So if this makes corporations "not people" then you must say that ALL groups are "not people" because all other groups also have no social security number.

Good example: a FAMILY doesn't have a social security number. So therefore,

Families are not people?

So you need to go back to the drawing board. You're still not telling us what it is that makes corporations "not people" -- you have this IMPULSE driving you to say the slogan "corporations are not people" and yet you can't explain why they're not people the same as all other groups.

And even though you might reluctantly be willing to consider that other groups also are "not people," you can't bring yourself to say any other groups are "not people" -- you choke up trying to get those words out. So far no one has been willing to say straightforward

"ALL groups are not people."