Do corporations deserve the same legal protections as people?
This is a conversation from Facebook. My philosopher friend Stephan Pernar joined the group called “Corporations are not people.” In response I asked:
What essential difference does it make whether corporations “are” people, when they are composed of people? Seeking insight into the basis of your position. I’m probably neutral on the subject itself but wary of people “sticking it” to corporations as though that were not “sticking it” to people who own the corporation.
He replied: “My main critique is that corporations are pursuing essentially non-human goals (monetary gain) with super human ability. This leads to a dynamic that skews interactions in favor of the corporations. Also: people should not be able to own people.”
And I answered:
I have grave reservations myself about large corporations, largely around the fact that some of them act too much like governments. I haven’t really sorted out why they do so, but it may be a simple question of the accumulation of power, and what that does to the human soul — and nothing to do with corporate status, per se.
As I recall, the corporate entity as such is largely an artifact of the screwed up tax code. If it weren’t for the goofy tax advantages, most corporations would be companies of one stripe or another. You can certainly get protection from lawsuits and bankruptcy without becoming a corporation. That’s what limited liability companies (LLCs) are about.
In any case, you say that corporations are pursuing “non-human” goals, and cite monetary gain as an example. It seems to me that pursuing monetary gain is one of the most human of goals. How many humans do you know who don’t do this? It’s a small fraction. Are these the only humans deserving of personhood status?… See More
I think I realize what you are saying, of course: That by focusing on money, corporations are ignoring may of the human considerations like compassion and honor, etc. But in this respect, I don’t see a group of humans who call themselves a corporation as particularly different than any other groups of humans. Humans are always looking for the advantage, especially financially, regardless of what they call their group.
I’m not sure what you mean by “people should not be able to own people.” Are you saying that if a corporation has the rights of a person, then it’s like one person (shareholders) owning another (the corporation)? This strikes me as somewhat beside the point, which seems to be something like: Does a group of people (whether they call themselves a corporation or a co-op or a family) ~deserve~ the same political rights that a single individual deserves?
I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s not clear to me that simply because the group calls themselves a corporation, the answer should be no, whereas for other groups it should be yes.
I don’t mean to create too much cognitive mess, here. It’s just not clear to me at all that saying “corporations aren’t people” adds much conceptual clarity to the moral questions involved. Instead, it seems to vilify people who turn their company into a corporation … which is usually done for tax benefits. And since most people would rather pay less taxes, this doesn’t seem like a good criteria for personhood, either.
I look forward to your thoughts.
And I look forward to yours as well….
As a starting point in any good faith discussion, one should keep in mind that Article 2 of the Bill of Rights states, unequivocally, that ” Congress shall make no law . . . 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.”
1. The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights to those governed under the Constitution: it is a reservation of Constitutional authority imposed upon the governing class.
2. The reservation of Constitutional authority upon the governing class — i.e, that it “shall make no law abridging freedom of speech” — is absolute.
3. If one were to imagine that legal persons, i.e., corporations, are intended beneficiaries of the Bill of Righgts, then one might also imagine that universities operating under educational charters are not entitled to “freedom of speech,” or that newspapers organized as corporations or partnerships are not, are not entitled to freedom of the press.”
4. Corporations, as economic actors, continuously provide society with specific expressions of aggregate individual interest. That corporations may have the resources to speak for the aggregate interest of thousands of shareholders, as opposed to a single individual, does not make the information so communicated illegitimate or harmful to citizens’ choices when they cast their individual votes.
5. In my experience, corporations serve as vehicles for social and economic change. They implement the laws enacted by government to regulate their social and economic conduct. Yet, when their fundamental interests are endangered (generally through taxation or over regulation) they provide an potent check on the otherwise deafening voice of the governing class. Freedom of speech is essential to maintain this balance.
Best regards, Ai Taishan.
I think the issue of whether corporations have rights masks the true problem with McCain-Feingold – that it gives the government the power to decide who is and who isn’t allowed to have freedom of speech, and what they’re allowed to say.
The New York Times is a corporation. Of course we all agree that they should have free speech, and can freely use their resources to advocate positions and endorse or criticize candidates whenever they want. But why shouldn’t that also apply to the General Motors corporation? What if they publish a company newsletter?
We can make a common-sense distinction between a major newspaper and a company newsletter, but is there really an objective criteria you can put in place? What if instead of General Motors it’s General Electric, and they own a TV network. Why should that change what they’re allowed to say? And if it does, why should corporations that own media outlets be the only ones with free speech? Why can’t a company who doesn’t have the wealth to buy their own outlet rent one for 30 seconds by buying an ad?
And more importantly, do you really trust government bureaucrats with the power to decide that?
Keep in mind, the specific case that the lawsuit was about involved an advocacy group that was forbidden from releasing a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. But there have been dozens of movies critical of George W. Bush. So this isn’t just a hypothetical issue – we’ve already seen selective enforcement of government bureaucrats picking which government officials people are allowed to criticize. And that’s exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
Also, pretty much all movies are released by corporations. Just as pretty much all newspapers and books are published by corporations, all TV stations are owned by corporations, and all websites are hosted by corporations. So if you say freedom of speech doesn’t apply to corporations, you’re limiting it to people cranking out pamphlets on their home printers and shouting on street corners.
In my opinion corporations represent very narrow class of people with lots of money who are shaping government policies with the help of giant financial contribution at election times. That is why corporations do not provide a “potent check on the otherwise deafening voice of the governing class” as Ai Taishan suggested.
If a corporation is given “freedom of speech” whose voice are we going to hear? That of the corporation’s clients – NO, that of the corporation’s middle-class and lower-class employees – NO, that of the corporation’s owners/stake holders – YES and YES.
I will let you answer for yourself the question “Do the corporation’s owners/stake holders want what is best for their employees, clients, and the general public or do they want what is best for them and what is going to make them even more rich and powerful?”
I may sound cynical about corporations, just as I noted a hint of cynicism in previous posts about government. I can understand someone’s mistrust in corrupted elected officials, but at least we, the people, get to vote for them, place them in office and put our faith in them. At the end of the day, we have some control over them. But the actions of most, if not all, giant multinational corporations are to this day unaccountable.
Kal
The concept that a corporation can be recognized as a person (and therefore enjoy the rights and protections that persons are granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) is actually a fallacy. In 1886 Southern Pacific Railroad argued that the 14th Amendment (the amendment that gave slaves equal protection under the law) also applied to corporations. In the ruling, the justices SPECIFICALLY declined to rule on that aspect of the law.
A court reporter was charged with writing a summary of the case and this court reporter wrongly declared “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
But the summary was taken as the law and here we are today.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned with the potential power of corporations especially in the political arena. It is the height of hypocrisy for the “originalists” such as Scalia and Thomas to posit that the Constitution bestows the rights of personhood on corporations. This is the conservative-loathed judicial activism at its most ignominious.
Read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Gentlemen, you miss the point. Under our Constitutional system, the rule is that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech.” The issue decided by the courts does not turn on how Congressman So-and-So feels about corporations, universities, newspapers, etc. The issue also does not turn upon the identity of the speaker. The Constitution states this: “Congress shall make no law.” It lacks authority.
Mudo’s attempt to characterize the intent of “the Founding Fathers” lacks historical basis. The Bill of Rights amended the basic text of the Constitution to explicitly state what should be self evident from the Preamble: that the authority of Congress, the Executive, and the Courts is expressly granted by the People, and what is not expressly granted by the People is reserved to the States and to the People. In its text, it sets forth clear limitations circumscribing the scope of federal power and, in so doing, plainly states the source of our unique American freedom.
Kal and Mundo — One might think that the text of the First Amendment, the express legacy of the drafters, as debated and ratified by the legislature of thirteen states, provides a better statement of Founding Father’s intent — and their concern for power — than vague invocations of the “concern” of “Founding Fathers.” Such arguments are particularly suspect when asserted to vindicate opinions based on personal bias or interest.
In this I agree with the ACLU, which urged the Court to strike down the specific statutes in question. And I recommend to you the good counsel of Floyd Abrams (in express disagreement with his client, the New York Times). See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.html.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association are absolute and fundamental: if you abridge them for what may seem in service of a good cause, you also make them subject to abridgement in service of an evil one. The Court majority struck a reasonable balance, both vindicating freedom and the obligation to disclose interest. Good decision.