Recent Trends in Corporate Personhood and the Overexpansion of Corporate Rights

[BjornP]

I don't get just how such a legal question can even arise or how the question could even matter enough to come up in courts. Of course a corporation is not a person nor is it people, but any utterance of any of the individual members is an utterance of an individual person and as such (ought to be considered as) protected speech. Same applies to property rights. Should not matter that a corp is not a person, as the property rights of the individual members of the corp is already established and they are persons.

[Okeefenokee]

I don't get just how such a legal question can even arise or how the question could even matter enough to come up in courts. Of course a corporation is not a person nor is it people, but any utterance of any of the individual members is an utterance of an individual person and as such (ought to be considered as) protected speech. Same applies to property rights. Should not matter that a corp is not a person, as the property rights of the individual members of the corp is already established and they are persons.

You might not have seen it, but a couple years back most millenials watched a bunch of lefty documentaries on netflix, and formed beliefs based solely on their content. Some have shifted their views since, but it seems most haven't. It's basically a religion that gives purpose to the left. One of the tenants is that corporations are evil. Don't think about it too much. It's only there to create a common enemy, and keep the diverse subgroups of the left in line. Any descriptor of the devil corps is received negatively. If a corporation cures cancer, well thanks alot, now the corporations are contributing to over crowding. Those dastardly corporations.

Also, this is how most millenials were introduced to Elizabeth Warren. Every lefty documentary she's in portrays her as a divine savior taking the fight to the big guys, so that's how they see her, and not as an opportunistic politician who lied about being native american to get bennies.

[BjornP]

This is what I get when I google the background for Citizens United vs FEC:

During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... Background

Looks more like a right-wing organization wanting to prevent a leftist film maker from advertising his movie because they think he's circumventing a silly law banning political ads during a certain timespan.

Anyway, since people can be evil, and people can cooperate to execute evil plans, it follows that corporations can do evil. Or even just dastardly acts. We might even settle for ruthless or unethical. Hell, they may simple be a little naughty.. Still doesn't make a company a person, anymore than a country is a person.

[Okeefenokee]

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).

How does the law define “corporate personhood” and what is its value?

Schragger: Corporations and similar organizations are classified as APs, or “artificial persons.” Corporations are treated as singular thinking and acting entities for legal purposes. The corporate person is a fiction; corporations and other organizations are made up of individuals or “natural persons” but are not “persons” themselves—the law is what personifies them.

Whether it is good or bad for the law to personify corporations depends upon one’s goals. Certainly it is useful to treat the corporation as an entity that can sue and be sued, that can own property, and that can enter into contracts and commit torts. These are all things that make corporations look like individuals for legal purposes. But it would be strange to permit corporations to vote in elections or to claim violations of their “human rights” or their political rights more generally. The corporate form of organization is just that—a form of organization. Corporations are useful organizations—they help coordinate large numbers of natural persons and encourage investment and give room for individuals to engage in productive enterprise. But there are lots of different ways to organize natural persons in the world. Families, churches, clubs, towns, cities and other governments are all institutions that engage in productive activity. We do not have to treat any of them as persons for them to fulfill their missions.

Is the term being used correctly within the context of the protests?

Kitch: As far as I can tell, the Occupy Wall Street protesters do not care about whether or not the law treats corporations as legal persons for purposes of deciding whether or not they can make contracts, commit torts, own property, or bring lawsuits. When they refer to corporations they are not referring to the legal entities that are recognized by the law due to the operation of statutes for the incorporation of for-profit, nonprofit, and municipal entities. Rather, they are using the term corporations to refer to the social community of persons associated with the corporation: its leaders, its employees, its creditors, its shareholders, and even, perhaps, its customers.

This usage is fairly new to me. I first became aware of it when I realized that the press was aggregating contributions made by the employees of an entity and reporting them as contributions attributable to the entity. Thus reported contributions by “Goldman Sachs” would include contributions by all of the employees of Goldman Sachs.

So when Occupy Wall Street protesters object to “corporations,” they are not objecting to their corporate form. They are objecting to the behavior of the persons associated with the entity.

Consistent with this interpretation, the Occupy Wall Street protesters do not appear to be considering any changes in corporate and related laws related to the question of whether or not a corporation is treated as a legal person.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni ... onhood.htm

[Martin Hash]

This is what I get when I google the background for Citizens United vs FEC:
Looks more like a right-wing organization wanting to prevent a leftist film maker from advertising his movie because they think he's circumventing a silly law banning political ads during a certain timespan.

Opposite: Right-wing filmmaker doing a hit piece on Hillary. She actually brought suit to stop them, and lost. One of the biggest ironies in history.

Making corporations "people" is political. If 2 people split their vote, one of the people makes a corporation to break the tie.

[clubgop]

...that's the right to sue the government, not other people. How the fuck...

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

doh!

It's almost as if Court summons = entrapment doesn't know shit when it comes to the law.

[clubgop]

This is what I get when I google the background for Citizens United vs FEC:

During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... Background

Looks more like a right-wing organization wanting to prevent a leftist film maker from advertising his movie because they think he's circumventing a silly law banning political ads during a certain timespan.

Anyway, since people can be evil, and people can cooperate to execute evil plans, it follows that corporations can do evil. Or even just dastardly acts. We might even settle for ruthless or unethical. Hell, they may simple be a little naughty.. Still doesn't make a company a person, anymore than a country is a person.

Yes, you would have benefitted from a proper read through. Citizens was establishing that the FEC would apply the law unfairly and the FEC promptly demonstrated letting Moore's movie be distributed but not Citizens movie. They had no desire or even intention to block Moore's movie it was a complaint designed to lose, as the took the decision from the FEC and did not further litigate the matter. Only when the FEC unfairly ruled them to be in violation did they litigate.

[clubgop]

This is what I get when I google the background for Citizens United vs FEC:
Looks more like a right-wing organization wanting to prevent a leftist film maker from advertising his movie because they think he's circumventing a silly law banning political ads during a certain timespan.

Opposite: Right-wing filmmaker doing a hit piece on Hillary. She actually brought suit to stop them, and lost. One of the biggest ironies in history.

Making corporations "people" is political. If 2 people split their vote, one of the people makes a corporation to break the tie.

Ridiculous. The standard should be and indeed is that all coporations are treated equally. When the President said the press were enemies of the American people, the same people who argue against Citizens, now want to hold the rights of the press sacrosanct. But what are the press? Nothing but a set of corporations. NYT, a corporation. Wapo, a corporation. CNN, a corporation. Why are these coporations speech untouchable but everyone else's aren't?

[Speaker to Animals]

This is what I get when I google the background for Citizens United vs FEC:
Looks more like a right-wing organization wanting to prevent a leftist film maker from advertising his movie because they think he's circumventing a silly law banning political ads during a certain timespan.

Opposite: Right-wing filmmaker doing a hit piece on Hillary. She actually brought suit to stop them, and lost. One of the biggest ironies in history.

Making corporations "people" is political. If 2 people split their vote, one of the people makes a corporation to break the tie.

Ridiculous. The standard should be and indeed is that all coporations are treated equally. When the President said the press were enemies of the American people, the same people who argue against Citizens, now want to hold the rights of the press sacrosanct. But what are the press? Nothing but a set of corporations. NYT, a corporation. Wapo, a corporation. CNN, a corporation. Why are these coporations speech untouchable but everyone else's aren't?

There's ^^^ a mic drop post.

[Martin Hash]

The Supreme Court has already decided corporations are people; who am I to disagree? The Supreme Court has also said women can murder their unborn children.