SCOTUS

The Bush-Packed Supreme Court Thinks Corporations Are People Too

By Scott Klinger, AlterNet
Posted on January 22, 2010, Printed on January 22, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145323/

This week's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case removes all limits on large   corporations to finance and influence federal elections. In its ruling the court reverses a decades-old ruling barring companies from using their general funds to fund political campaigns, and guts pieces of the popular McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. In so doing the Court implicitly embraces a 125 year-old precedent in the case of Santa Clara v. Santa Fe, where the Court first developed the legal doctrine of corporate personhood, explicitly granting corporations the same political and civil rights granted to human beings (historian Thom Hartmann discovered that the principle originated with a corrupt court clerk who added it to the case summary, rather than with the court itself).

But what if we accept corporate personhood as the current reality and instead focus on changing the rules so that corporations would also have to be bound by other limitations of humanity? How would corporations be different if they were indeed human-like?

If corporations were human, they would pause for sleep and recreation. When human families vacation, they frequently go to parks or natural places which they inherently recognize as part of the commons set apart from the marketplace. Many corporations know no such bounds; if resources are available, even in the nation’s National Parks, they will seek to develop them. Today’s modern corporations are 24/7 affairs that are always charging forward. The press for continuous growth and the need to deliver the next quarter’s earnings, make corporation’s urgency and intensity toward time a threat to many communities, which have other priorities like caring for children and elders, not the tireless quest to produce more profit.

If corporations were human, they would acknowledge their dependence on a healthy community for their well-being and contribute financially to the vibrancy of the community through payment of taxes. Fifty years ago, corporate taxes made up nearly 22 percent of the federal treasury receipts; today corporate taxes contribute less than 13 percent to the federal budget. The mindset of many large corporations is that of takers, looking to be supported by society with a stream of tax credits and preferential tax rates. According to a 2008 report by the Government Accounting Office, 25 percent of large U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes in 2005 (the latest year studied) despite reporting collective sales exceeding $1.1 trillion.

If corporations were human, they would recognize that their brains are only one of many vital organs. The brain, which provides the executive function for the body whole, nonetheless consumes a relatively modest share of the body’s nutrition. A brain that swells beyond a normal healthy state is a dire threat to the body and most often requires the dramatic intervention of surgery. An inhuman corporation provides ever-larger amounts of nutrition in the form of money to its executive function. These swollen levels of pay are a cancer that often results in excessive risk, putting both the corporation and society at risk.

If corporations were human, they would be accountable to society when they break the law and would be punished with a loss of their freedoms. When a person steals or murders, they are sent to prison, where they lose their freedom to practice their trade and to participate in the economic and political life of the community. When corporations produce products they know to be deadly, or withhold important information on the safety of their products are they not guilty of murder? When corporations submit fraudulent financial statements to investors, or engage in deceptive marketing practices that cost people their homes or their life savings, are they not guilty of felonious theft? Shouldn’t corporate criminals, particularly repeat offenders, be denied their freedom to practice business and have their license revoked?

If corporations were human, they would one day die. Unlike the finitude of human life, modern corporations can live forever under the law, growing in size and gaining political and economic power generation after generation.

It was not always so. When our nation was young, people recognized both the good things that business contributed but also the risks of concentrating too much power in the hands of businesses. Business charters were granted for a set period of time, commonly a generation, after which time the businesses would be dissolved. While businesses could still prosper and grow to have influence, they were kept from becoming "too big to fail"—a condition in which their size alone was a threat to the social order.

Corporations can’t have it both ways—insisting upon the political and civil rights that human beings are guaranteed under the Constitution, while at the same time refusing to live within the constraints of human life in terms of longevity, size, accountability and support of the communities that grant them their existence.

Scott Klinger is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145323/

Comments

[Morgan]

We talked about this in class and I agree that this new law is saying that corporations are indeend people and this new right will give the corporations the power to buy out elections. It is true that money has a huge influence on the winner of an election. The candidate with the most support financially is usually the outright winner in the election. Therefore, this new law is giving corporations way to much power in this supposedly sovereign country. The elections are supposed to be fair where every person's vote counts but now these corporations are going to impact these elections and not in a good way.

[kmcnutt]

Politics have always confused me, and I get so overwhelmed with information or annoyed with campaigns that I get turned off quickly. This new thing about corporations being humans is wild. After reading, I understand that corporations can support candidates and so, as morgan said, the one with the most money wins.
I found a few parts comical. As I read, I imagined a person in a suit that was grotesquely overweight and too many rings on his fingers with money stuck all out of his pockets. I think this image came because of the line, about the companies being able to grow and grow. Then, when it began to describe what humans do for vacation, like return to nature or parks it was comical also. It's so true that a money man would want to come in and build wherever there was space, even in a National Park. I think this article did a good job describing how bad and almost uncontrollable this choice could spiral.

[Julie Jackson]

I liked how it said, "Corporations can't have it both ways". That is so true. It is giving way to much power to these corporations. The article was right corporations are not human, they cannot die. It would be taking our freedom away and the freedom to vote and choose. I liked how the article explained it and started every paragraph out with, "If corporations were human". I thought that was clever. So obviously I think that this whole corporation deal is dumb and should not happen. Hopefully people will get some sense and realize it is not a good idea.

[Larz]

I agree with the other comments. Its kind of funny that this law is saying that corporations are people. Like Julie said these corporations have to much power, and now that they are "humans" they have even more. They will win in elections because they will buy who they want to win. I do not agree with that because it is just not fair. Elections are supposed to be fair and voted by the people not fake human large corporations. I think that it is stupid and we should probably do away with this law.

[mgn]

I like how this article constantly says “if corporations were human, they would…” because it reminds us that corporations can not be treated or considered “people.” The reason for this is that unlike people corporations have been able to survive because they have the power to do whatever they want without any force of nature or force of authority to stop them. We have let corporations get out of our grasp; we have let them expand to the point where they have more say in society then people in political standings. And it’s like the article said that since corporations are not human they have the ability to live and grow for many generations, and the longer they can sustain life the more controlling they will become.

[Sarah Thullbery]

I knew that there was some legal precedent that this recent Supreme Court decision about corporations was based on. However, I did not realize it was so faulty. It is ridiculous that it was based upon the opinion of a court reporter, who was previously a businessman and worked in the railroad business. Actually, it reminds me of the torture memos that John Yoo wrote, which led to the legality of torture. I think that the more fundamental case of whether corporations should or should not be treated like human beings under the law needs to go to the Supreme Court. That way, either the new laws under which corporations get things like free speech and can donate a limitless amount of money to political campaigns will be taken away, or the corporations need different limitations placed on their power. Like the article says, they can't have it both ways.

[Tyler]

I read this entire article and not once did I see the word "union" appear. Our supreme court considers a corporation to be a human, but not a union?! Oh my goodness! I really don't know where to start!

Corporations are interest-groups, not humans. Their interest is themselves! Their interest is profit for themselves no matter the cost. Unions interest is the betterment of the members. How can the government be so biased as to skip over this?

This decision declared that unions can only give to an organization. That organization can then support a candidate, but unions do not have as many rights with donations as a corporation does.

[Brandon]

I think it is outrageous that anyone would think it was okay to allow a corporation to be seen as a human being. It just seems to me that everyone would see that is a problem. A corporation is a business and businesses number one goal is to make profit. Humans have feelings and care about others, corporations don't. They will do whatever it takes to make money and make a profit. We talked in class that now politicians can buy an election. Buying an election isn't fair whatsoever. When a corporation has the ability to buy an election does our vote really count? There has been so many things Americans have done to try to get everyone to vote, but if Americans realize their votes won't matter, because an election is being bought they won't even bother voting at all.

[JohnEvans]

The part that scares me most about this article is the line "historian Thom Hartmann discovered that the principle originated with a corrupt court clerk who added it to the case summary, rather than with the court itself." This means that constitutional law for the last century in a quarter has been based not on a ruling but a clerks opinion. I concur with the everyones opinion that considering a corporation to be a person is ludicrous but don't understand the difference between the owner or owners of a corporation giving the money and the corporation it self giving the money. If we were to restrict the amount and ways a corporation can give money it restricts the rights of the owner(s). It a publicly traded corporation the owners should know enough about the corporation policies and if they do not support the policy withdraw there investment. Thereby the corporation would only have owners which support there policies, including the politicians funded.

[Tyler]

John--

When an owner gives from his own pocket, it is a personal donation and does not effect anyone else. If the corporation gives, then the money is spent by an entity that is made up of other people. The donation then effects everyone that is a part of that corporation. In this situation, the individuals don't have a say so, the majority does. The system is set up to where the majority isn't always the most powerful--thank goodness.

[cdavis17]

I really don't like the fact that this new law was passed. Do big cooporations have feelings, or thoughts? No. It is just the CEO and the "big guys" that make all the decisions and buy their way to get what they want. This is not fair to the "little people"- the individual. We might as well not even have the right to vote, if all of the people with the most money can swing a vote. I mean what is the point of the individual getting any kind of say so, the government is turning into something I just don't like

[David Cook]

Absolute insanity.