Is A Corporation A Person

[PratchettFan]

I say no based on the simple dictionary definition...

1
a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild
b : the municipal authorities of a town or city

2
: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession

3
: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state

4
: potbelly 1

Source: Corporation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I think you need to read your definitions again.

 

[DiamondDave]

Little racist Marc.. ***** slapped again.. but it won't stop him from regurgitating this all over again next month

 

[bripat9643]

If so why? If not, why not?

Is a union or a political party a person?

No.

That was easy.

So they aren't protected by the First Amendment? Is that what you're saying?

 

[bripat9643]

If so why? If not, why not?

Corporations are owned and operated by people. The legal construct of "corporate personhood" has nothing to do with what most people get bent out of shape about when it comes to corporate malfeasance. Arguably, corporate personhood makes corporations more accountable because it allows them to be sued.

The real problem, in my view, is limited liability which shields the owners of the corporation from being sued. It protects the people who directly profit from a corporations misdeeds.

So you think if the corporation gets sued, than the net worth of every stock holder should be on the chopping block?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If so why? If not, why not?

Is a union or a political party a person?

No.

That was easy.

Good then the same restrictions as far as campaign activities should apply to all corporations, unions and political parties.

 

[Ernie S.]

If so why? If not, why not?

This is what I got for simply posing this question...

Hi, you have received -626 reputation points from DiamondDave.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
idiot

Regards,
DiamondDave

Note: This is an automated message.

Interesting.

Dave is an observant man. You are kind of whiny.

 

[Katzndogz]

The state of the law is that a corporation is a legal person. You might not like it. Denying it might feel really good. Corporations will still be legal persons.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The state of the law is that a corporation is a legal person. You might not like it. Denying it might feel really good. Corporations will still be legal persons.

We need to change that. They are entities that should be accountible for their wrong-doings (and should have to face consequences - the executives and leaders at least), but as they own congress, that'll never happen unless the American people finally revolt.

 

[DGS49]

A corporation is a fictitious person created by the State for the purpose of allowing its owners to engage in lawful activity without assuming personal responsibility.

Anyone doing business with a corporation should - by law - recognize that the corporation can only be liable up to its insurance coverage plus its assets, and if everything is done properly, the assets of the owners are not subject to suit.

But since a corporation does have legal existence (as opposed to physical existence), it can "speak," thus reflecting the thoughts, desires, attitudes, and fears of its stakeholders - meaning its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, and even its suppliers, customers, and service providers. It can sue and be sued. It can communicate through advertisement, public forums, press releases, and all manner of public communications.

It derives its "First Amendment right of free speech" implicitly through its citizen-stakeholders, when it speaks in their interests. The same is true of fraternal organizations such as Unions, regardless of what legal form they take.

Ironically, the corporation may have interests that run contrary to some of the stakeholders, and thus they need to determine for themselves whether they want to retain their stakes in the corporation. Individual environmentalists may want to divest their interests in corporations that conduct activities that the individuals believe are environmentally destructive. Many union members hold personal views on political issues that run counter to the positions taken by their Unions, and thus they fight to be able to either withdraw from the Unions or withhold that portion of their dues that pays for political activities.

Good luck with that.

Since corporations don't actually exist, the only sane policy w/r/t TAXES is to eliminate all corporate income taxes, and compel the C-Corps to either pay out their profits to the owners in the form of dividends (where they will be taxed), re-invest them into the business, or pay them out to employees in the form of pay and bonuses (where they will be taxed). The U.S. has one of the highest total tax burdens on corporations in the First World, reflecting the stupidity of the American public ("Evil corportations!") and the willingness of the Government to cater to the public's stupidity.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is a legal entity.

 

[blackhawk]

Yes who forms a corporation a person or people who makes up and runs a corporation people. I have a simple question in return has anyone ever seen a corporation that was not created and run by a person and or people?

 

[g5000]

If so why? If not, why not?

Corporations are owned and operated by people. The legal construct of "corporate personhood" has nothing to do with what most people get bent out of shape about when it comes to corporate malfeasance. Arguably, corporate personhood makes corporations more accountable because it allows them to be sued.

The real problem, in my view, is limited liability which shields the owners of the corporation from being sued. It protects the people who directly profit from a corporations misdeeds.

So you think if the corporation gets sued, than the net worth of every stock holder should be on the chopping block?

I don't think that is what he is saying.

I think he is talking about LLCs.


For public corporations, the shareholders will suffer a loss when a company is sued and the stock price drops.

 

[Mr Natural]

A compromise:

We'll give you personage for a corporation, you give us no personage for a fetus.

Deal?

 

[g5000]

You are arguing over a media invention, not a legal term.

 

[dblack]

Corporations are owned and operated by people. The legal construct of "corporate personhood" has nothing to do with what most people get bent out of shape about when it comes to corporate malfeasance. Arguably, corporate personhood makes corporations more accountable because it allows them to be sued.

The real problem, in my view, is limited liability which shields the owners of the corporation from being sued. It protects the people who directly profit from a corporations misdeeds.

So you think if the corporation gets sued, than the net worth of every stock holder should be on the chopping block?

I don't think that is what he is saying.

I think he is talking about LLCs.


For public corporations, the shareholders will suffer a loss when a company is sued and the stock price drops.

I'm honestly not sure where the right balance lies - but I do think there needs to be accountability carried through to the investors of these companies. When they elect unscrupulous leaders and, essentially, tell them "do whatever it takes" to turn a profit, they should share the responsibility for the actions of the company.

A sole business owner would, rightfully, be held liable for the actions of their employees. I think it's a mistake to break that accountability in the case of corporations. Stockholders obviously don't have as much control, and have a much "smaller" share of the overall accountability, but they should suffer some repercussions for financing a company doing bad things. Investors should have a strong incentive to be prudent and avoid shady investments.

Maybe simply the loss of the funds invested would be enough of an 'accounting'. If it were allowed to happen. Which is the other issue - (some) corporations have learned that manipulating government is the key to maintaining their dominance. Whether they're "too big to fail", or just too deeply into the pockets of Congress, the accounting never happens.

 

[g5000]

So you think if the corporation gets sued, than the net worth of every stock holder should be on the chopping block?

I don't think that is what he is saying.

I think he is talking about LLCs.


For public corporations, the shareholders will suffer a loss when a company is sued and the stock price drops.

I'm honestly not sure where the right balance lies - but I do think there needs to be accountability carried through to the investors of these companies. When they elect unscrupulous leaders and, essentially, tell them "do whatever it takes" to turn a profit, they should share the responsibility for the actions of the company.

A sole business owner would, rightfully, be held liable for the actions of their employees. I think it's a mistake to break that accountability in the case of corporations. Stockholders obviously don't have as much control, and have a much "smaller" share of the overall accountability, but they should suffer some repercussions for financing a company doing bad things. Investors should have a strong incentive to be prudent and avoid shady investments.

Maybe simply the loss of the funds invested would be enough of an 'accounting'. If it were allowed to happen. Which is the other issue - (some) corporations have learned that manipulating government is the key to maintaining their dominance. Whether they're "too big to fail", or just too deeply into the pockets of Congress, the accounting never happens.

Tell that to the stockholders of GM. Or Citibank. They all lost everything while the companies were allowed to survive.

The stockholders of the Wall Street firms were badly hammered, while the actual criminals walked away with millions in bonuses.


The problem is that the criminals are not being jailed. The failures are not being allowed to actually fail. And everyone else pays for it except the wrongdoers.

When a fraud is caught, his company pays the fine and takes it out of the dividends that would have gone to the investors.

You are absolutely right that some corporations own our government, though. When you take away the power from the states to prosecute, and concentrate industry oversight authority in just a handful of federal agencies, that makes regulatory capture that much easier.

See Section 117 of the CFMA for an example. Those who purport to be "states rights" defenders were dead silent while all this was going on.

 

[Katzndogz]

The state of the law is that a corporation is a legal person. You might not like it. Denying it might feel really good. Corporations will still be legal persons.

We need to change that. They are entities that should be accountible for their wrong-doings (and should have to face consequences - the executives and leaders at least), but as they own congress, that'll never happen unless the American people finally revolt.

Corporations are accountable for their wrongdoing. What you don't like is when a corporation has a social position you don't like . When a corporation pollutes a stream the corporation as a whole is punished. They have to pay to clean it up. Pay damages to whoever got sick. If a corporation was not a legal person only the person who dumped pollution into the stream is responsible.

What liberals want is for corporations to be treated like unborn children. They are persons for some circumstances but not for others.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The state of the law is that a corporation is a legal person. You might not like it. Denying it might feel really good. Corporations will still be legal persons.

We need to change that. They are entities that should be accountible for their wrong-doings (and should have to face consequences - the executives and leaders at least), but as they own congress, that'll never happen unless the American people finally revolt.

Better do some reading on piecing the corporate veil.. the notion that "corporations", and those that run them can just run around breaking laws is, well, just wrong.

 

[healthmyths]

A corporation is a legal person. If a corporation was not a legal person there would be no more deep pockets to sue. There would be mo more environmental laws for corporations to break and no such thing as corporate taxes. We would return to the LLC which is what we had before the days of corporate liability.

YOU are so full of crap!
LLCs came last!!!
LLCs didn't exist before the 80s and I know cause I was one of the very few LLC in Florida in 1990s!
In the United States, the first limited liability company act appeared in Wyoming in 1977 as special interest[clarification needed] legislation for an oil company.[37] In 1980, the Internal Revenue Service issued a private letter ruling to an LLC formed under Wyoming LLC Act indicating that the IRS would treat the LLC as a partnership for federal tax purposes.[38]

Limited liability company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What did exist were two types of corporations Standard corporations came into existence FIRST 1700s.
Sub-Chapter S corporations ...later.
During the time of colonial expansion in the 17th century, the true progenitors of the modern corporation emerged as the "chartered company". Acting under a charter sanctioned by the Dutch government, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) defeated Portuguese forces and established itself in the Moluccan Islands in order to profit from the European demand for spices. Investors in the VOC were issued paper certificates as proof of share ownership, and were able to trade their shares on the original Amsterdam stock exchange. Shareholders are also explicitly granted limited liability in the company's royal charter.[10] In the late 18th century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as,

a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.

A Subchapter S corporation is a corporation, which meets the requirements for and has made a proper election to be taxed under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. Although its taxation is a creature of the tax code it is not a corporation, which is organized under the Internal Revenue Code. This seems to be a popular misconception among entrepreneurs.

Why Elect Subchapter S status? The primary perceived benefit is one layer of tax. A corporation like IBM is taxed under "Subchapter C" of the Internal Revenue Code. IBM pays taxes on its net profits and then the IBM stockholders pay taxes when the profits are paid out to them. In contrast, in a Subchapter S corporation the corporation's net profit or net loss is deemed distributed to the stockholders, who have to include it on their individual tax returns whether or not they actually receive cash.

 

[OODA_Loop]

For the purposes of 1st Amendment protections .....yes.

See: Citizens United vs FEC