The Ultimate Guide To Corporate Personhood

[TemplarKormac]

A liberal person (whom I will not name) in a Facebook post insisted that a corporation isn't a person under the law and they should be deprived of their personhood. However he subsequently deleted his post after I sufficiently trumped his argument, he began referring to me as a troll and my opinions as 'obnoxious.' But I digress.

It got me thinking. The courts have ruled for nearly two centuries that corporations are in fact people, beginning in 1818:

"The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."

--Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)

1823:

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823)

1886:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)

1888:

"Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."

--Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)

1906:

Hale v. Henkel - 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

Separate acknowledgements of personhood regarding election contributions in 2010:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010)

and 2014:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

Even still, the ability of persons who apprise the corporation to make contracts with other corporations and people, suggest they have the same autonomy as a person does. Thusly, the people within the corporation should not be deprived of their constitutional rights simply because they act as a collective.

So why should corporations be deprived of their personhood? Chime in below.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

 

[TemplarKormac]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.' My thread melds the two concepts, personhood and the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.'

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The part of that doctrine that bothers me is the idea that money=speech.

If that's true, what about the inverse of it?

Do you have "freedom of money"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.'

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The part of that doctrine that bothers me is the idea that money=speech.

If that's true, what about the inverse of it?

Do you have "freedom of money"?

Actually yes. We do. We have a right to earn money, so do corporations. We also have the right to use it to express ourselves, so do corporations. What we do with it is a direct expression of what we believe; as with corporations, who donate money to reflect the views of the owners.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

That is disingenuous. The Constitution does not define who a 'person' is, either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.'

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The part of that doctrine that bothers me is the idea that money=speech.

If that's true, what about the inverse of it?

Do you have "freedom of money"?

Actually yes. We do. We have a right to earn money, so do corporations. We also have the right to use it to express ourselves, so do corporations. What we do with it is a direct expression of what we believe; as with corporations, who donate money to reflect the views of the owners.

As I said before, I have mixed views on this topic. Let me ask you a question - and I'll preface it with the statement that I don't have a good answer for it.

Do you think that exposure to political views should be based on how much money that "view" has been able to raise?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

That is disingenuous. The Constitution does not define who a 'person' is, either.

It's not disingenuous, my point was that the modern concept of "corporation" barely existed at the time the Constitution was written.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.'

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The part of that doctrine that bothers me is the idea that money=speech.

If that's true, what about the inverse of it?

Do you have "freedom of money"?

Actually yes. We do. We have a right to earn money, so do corporations. We also have the right to use it to express ourselves, so do corporations. What we do with it is a direct expression of what we believe; as with corporations, who donate money to reflect the views of the owners.

As I said before, I have mixed views on this topic. Let me ask you a question - and I'll preface it with the statement that I don't have a good answer for it.

Do you think that exposure to political views should be based on how much money that "view" has been able to raise?

Talk is cheap. When you back it up with money, it means something. People pay attention to money, that is why they willfully donate money to campaigns, whether they be person or corporation. That's a fact, not a personal belief. I believe in some cases, backing a view with money reflects a certain 'sincerity' on the part of the person expressing it. It means they genuinely believe that whatever view they hold is true.

Politics itself is inherently driven by money these days; so whatever views raise money, the candidate will tout in his campaign. If it is a prevalent issue affecting the country at the time of the election, he will exploit it to make more cash. It is a bit insincere on his/her part, but basically its a bit like a stalk of grain swaying in the wind. They go where the money goes, or better yet, some candidates are like pitchmen, they advertise their campaign, but they secretly discard their beliefs as soon as they are elected.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

That is disingenuous. The Constitution does not define who a 'person' is, either.

It's not disingenuous, my point was that the modern concept of "corporation" barely existed at the time the Constitution was written.

That doesn't mean much. The concept of a corporation has existed for nearly 200 years. The very fact that it 'existed' in the first place means that our primitive courts could discern that corporations are merely a collective of people, who are covered by the Constitution itself. So, is a collective of people acting as a single entity not a person? That's the tricky part.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

It isn't an issue at all.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

Neither do the words homosexual and woman.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So what is? Care to expand on that?

The concept of corporate personhood is essentially a requirement for a corporation to exist.

In terms of campaign finance, which is what I'm assuming is what your point is about, I have very mixed opinions, not one of them being about "corporate personhood".

I see. But when a corporate entity donates money to a political campaign, I see that as an expression of free speech. I agreed with Justice Kennedy in the Citizens United case, that money is important in disseminating free speech. In essence, 'money talks.'

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The part of that doctrine that bothers me is the idea that money=speech.

If that's true, what about the inverse of it?

Do you have "freedom of money"?

Actually yes. We do. We have a right to earn money, so do corporations. We also have the right to use it to express ourselves, so do corporations. What we do with it is a direct expression of what we believe; as with corporations, who donate money to reflect the views of the owners.

As I said before, I have mixed views on this topic. Let me ask you a question - and I'll preface it with the statement that I don't have a good answer for it.

Do you think that exposure to political views should be based on how much money that "view" has been able to raise?

If you hear the message "The Sun is green-colored" 20 times per day, does that make you believe that the Sun is green?

 

[Rikurzhen]

A liberal person (whom I will not name) in a Facebook post insisted that a corporation isn't a person under the law and they should be deprived of their personhood. However he subsequently deleted his post after I sufficiently trumped his argument, he began referring to me as a troll and my opinions as 'obnoxious.' But I digress.

If you run into these folks again ask them how a corporation can have a race if it's not a person. Courtesy of Justice Scalia, I believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And how is it a 'requirement'? Given that corporations are granted constitutional rights, what part of that makes it so?

The word "corporation" does not occur once in the Constitution.

Neither do the words homosexual and woman.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The doctrine of corporate personhood isn't really the issue to me.

It isn't an issue at all.

Prove it. Just how is it not an issue when Democrats make it an issue and a mantra that "Republicans only support corporate interests?" Why is it Democrats berate corporations for putting the "99%" at a disadvantage?

And it isn't an issue? Please don't be naive.