QUORA: “What would the founding fathers have thought of the ruling that 'corporations are people'?”
I posted this answer:
No one ever said that corporations are actual people. But there is a legal doctrine called corporate personhood, to which the question probably refers, and which the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized. As the Court noted in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the purpose of the doctrine of corporate personhood is to “to provide protection for human beings” organized under a corporation. “When rights . . . are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.” (See my essay Corporate Personhood” Clarified.)
As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, corporations are associations of individuals. "The First Amendment,” the Court held, “prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Corporations are obviously associations of individuals. Therefore, the government cannot “ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form.” If it could, “Its censorship [would be] vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations.” Significantly, the Court noted that media corporations could be targeted if people couldn’t speak under the corporate form. [my emphasis]
The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is an expression of the individual right of freedom of association. Freedom of association is recognized by the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This means that a number of individuals may voluntarily assemble as a means of collectively exercising their inalienable rights, including rights to property and free speech. The “personhood” of a corporation is merely an extension of the rights of the people who comprise the corporation for a limited purpose, such as to manage productive activity or to speak as one voice. Corporations are therefore not “people” apart from or superior to the individuals that comprise it, but an extension of the members’ individual rights. Individuals that voluntarily join groups like corporations neither lose nor gain rights.
The Founding Fathers, as creators of a country based upon individual rights, would approve of the doctrine “corporate personhood,” in my view. Corporate personhood is merely a legal fiction that stands for actual individual human beings. After all, they crafted the First Amendment to unite freedom of speech and assembly. This was no accident. How could they not agree with the doctrine of corporate personhood?
Related Reading:
“Corporate Personhood” Clarified
"Corporatists" Are Individuals, Too
If Citizens United is Overturned, Michael Moore’s Film Would be Banned. But Does the Left Care?
Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America by Steve Simpson for The Objective Standard
1 comment:
I believe some of the Founding Fathers were still alive when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. If so, history might tell us what those still living actually did think of it. (I haven't read this posting yet, but, I will.)
Post a Comment