[SeaGypsy]

People get rescinded, terminated, contract nullified, happens every day in the justice system.

[onlooker]

Sorry guys I flatly reject your arguments. First of all even if your points were valid about the necessity of personhood for corporations, the negatives of personhood outweigh the positives. I will address your points though. The corporation does not have to be sued per say, an individual within the corporation can be sued for damages in a court of law. Second, with the ability to terminate them, society is strictly controlling them so they will not engage in persistent behavior that hurts society in some way ie. faulty products, contaminating environment. Also, corporations do not need protection from us it is the other way around. They exist at our discretion only to provide an economic service and thus should not have the right to defend their products and services while the people do have the right to defend themselves against their products and services. Now, relative to the argument of devolving into oligarchy/feudalism that is in fact what has been happening as corporations have amassed more and more monopolistic power as we cannot limit it because that would infringe upon the "rights'' to grow their business. Trade and commerce were occurring quite well before this landmark decision in the 1880's.
Now in rebuttal, the deleterious aspects of corporate personhood. The ability to unduly influence elections with their money. The ability to sue and defend suits. How would you like to be the one little person trying to sue let us say Microsoft. Good luck with that. Also, their ability to contaminate environment, layoff workers and otherwise engage in risky or harmful business practices is provided by personhood as the logical conclusion is always for companies to argue any case against them with the argument that they are just trying to make a profit which after all is what they are about. So it is obscene that corporations were given these rights. That is why they became so powerful and they have with virtual impunity contaminated and damaged our planet and virtually co-opted the political system for it's own benefits and conversely the detriment of "real" people around the world. So then no surprise that monied entities rule the world, consumerism is the hallmark of our civilization and all other interests have been subordinated to the need for "profit"

[davep]

Surely it would just require a law allowing companies to be sued rather than turning the whole thing on its head to make companies have personhood?

Don't forget it was the railroads who, erm, railroaded corporate personhood. It wasn't done for the good of the people and any post-hoc analysis dredging up the suing of companies is irrelevant. They did it for the benefit of corporations.

The inability to petition Congress argument is also irrelevant. Lobbying is done behind the scenes and involves a lot of money. This is the reality of undemocratic corporate influence over the democratic process.

[SeaGypsy]

OL can't see an issue with employees being privately sued for carrying out orders. There is a huge issue, nobody wants responsibility personally for corporate failure, so the persons transfer both assets & responsibility to the fictitious person, appoint those they believe will steward their investment, & take a punt. As Cog suggested, suing shareholders beyond their equity/ interest is impossible, plausible deniability exists up to the decisions of boards of directors, who can lose their jobs, lose credibility in their professions, lose share transfers & bonuses, lose social status. Everybody can lose their money, including insurers. That's why just about all investors diversify. Without this structure bringing person like corporate responsibility, there would be no market diversity, capital would be restricted in the extreme, gold would go totally crazy, as would land prices as risk aversion would far outweigh profit seeking.

OL, I admire your youthful enthusiasm, but I think you might be taking certain well known PR without due pinch of salt. You pull the rug out from under the status quo, the implications are huge & not necessarily rosy. To be taken seriously around here you need to understand some of the implications & have something to bring to those. The problem with occupy isn't that they are not right, the problem is that tag line politics doesn't do the basics of political change- describe accurately & in detail where we are, critique that, offer an alternative, critique that, offer a pathway, critique that- then if you still have your friends convinced, move on to the general public (since you don't like politicians). Sloganeering does not present a valid pathway. If you are going to try it on, at least be ready to present any alternative.

[davep]

Bernie Sanders https://www.change.org/p/stop-corporate-personhood

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')anders' Saving American Democracy Amendment would make clear that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people and that corporations may be regulated by Congress and state legislatures. It also would preserve the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. It would incorporate a century-old ban on corporate campaign donations to candidates, and establish broad authority for Congress and states to regulate spending in elections.

[davep]

This is also on the money:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.') . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

[Cog]

Venezuela here we come.

I better stock up on more toilet paper. I will make a fortune.

[onlooker]

Sea your acumen in these matters is formidable but I cannot accept it. This is because people involved in corporations precisely evade personal responsibility via the corporation. So you should not have it both ways avoiding responsibility yet enjoying individual rights. I am not obliged to offer alternatives nor am I equipped to as I have not studied alternatives sufficiently ala American Dream. I do critique the system because the results are proof of a system run a muck. I think the crossroads where our paths diverge is that you Sea see a functioning system albeit with some abuses, while I see a system that is out of control ,insatiable and rampant with abuses. Our current situation attests to this. Corporations by and large have acted irresponsibly with respect to protecting the commons. They have sought at every turn to strike down legislation that protects workers, consumers and citizens. Business risk taking and investing should not be protected. The proponents of the market system rail constantly about how markets should be unfettered well again you cannot have it both ways. If this status quo of hyper economic activity and profit making is an end in itself then perhaps you can defend this system. If you see economics as a means to the end of the general well-being and welfare of people then you CANNOT defend this system nor corporations who have enjoyed too much freedom and impunity in their activities. Oh by the way Sea, I am not so young. 53.

[Pops]

Ah corporations! Some of my favorite people!

Way before Santa Clara, like 100 years before, there was Dartmouth vs Woodward here and shorter here that clarified the constitutional provision that the state must uphold contracts, which of course is all corporations are; contracts between shareholders.

This provision is kind of important because contracts are the basis of private property. But that decision (like lots of early SCOTUS rulings) set in motion the whole long line of corporate deregulation that occurred way before personhood.

Corporations had been very closely regulated initially because much of the abuse the colonists endured came at the hands of British corporations backed by the King. But all through the 1800s industry boomed and laws regulating corporations were relaxed as people had their minds elsewhere and benefited from moving to the bright lights provided by the industrialists.

This is the perfect example of how not voting is the problem. Almost as much as voting for your short term interest rather than the broader, grander ideas. It is exactly the same today. We knee jerk about Momma Grizzly and MSNBC while we just continue giving away our freedom to the owners. Except for Lizzy there isn't much of any politician about to rant on corporations like Grover ranted back in '88...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e discover that the fortunes realized by our manufacturers are no longer solely the reward of sturdy industry and enlightened foresight, but that they result from the discriminating favor of the Government and are largely built upon undue exactions from the masses of our people. The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor.

As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.

[Cog]

I toil daily but am not poor. I must be doing it wrong. LOL

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'I') toil daily but am not poor. I must be doing it wrong. LOL

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', ' ') I even was slightly targeted for being proud of not voting or getting involved on this site. I stand by this.

[kanon]

There is no practical requirement that corporate persons have protections under the bill of rights. Cog is completely wrong to say that the need to treat corporations as a person for legal simplicity means we must endow them with inalienable rights. Granting corporations person-hood in terms of free speech is a serious error by SCOTUS, regardless of the partisan conflict that gave them the case. The purpose of a corporation was to permit business or enterprises that were not persons, i.e. that we not liable and not responsible beyond their limited assets and obligations. Corporations are also instruments of the wealthy, to organize and promote their interests. The weak-minded royalists among us are enthralled with the corporate aristocrats and all too eager to install a new king.