Posted by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster:
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court’s majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with … [imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”
Not that it’s particularly relevant to this case — the owners of a corporation, its stockholders, severally have the right to free speech and exercising that right in cahoots with one another doesn’t diminish it — but if she’s consistent on the matter and can persuade four other justices some time down the road, perhaps the longstanding, pernicious, market-distorting doctrine of “corporate personhood” can be overturned. That would be a mini-revolution in itself!
Who’d have thought that one of Sotomayor’s first significant statements as a Supreme Court justice would be a tacit rejection of the court’s past judicial activism? And who thinks that “conservatives” won’t howl like stuck pigs over it if it gets much play?
This issue of corporate personhood and rights is embodied in the 14th Amendment. Adoption of rights under the 1st is made by extension from the rights claimed under the 14th. Corporations are considered “Born” “Persons” when the state(s) (not the federal government) issues a corporate charter. By further extention of this convoluted logic of application of the 14th (rights of a person extended to blacks) any revisiting of Roe v. Wade could ultimately strip this right of the states to control the “birth” of these “persons” and embody a right to incorporate no matter what public protections the states may wish to impose on corporate behavior. The states would no longer be in control of their “body”.
For further discussion and review on this issue I recommend Ted Nace’s book Gangs of America and for the strong argument against corporate personhood Thom Hartman’s book Unequal Protection and for a look into the mind of a Supreme Court justice not in favor of corporate personhood and his argument see the 1949 case US Supreme Court at caselaw.findlaw.com Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander 337 U.S. 562 (1949)
Corporate personhood is insidious. The above should say “…corporations which collect…”
@8 “…for instance, the press is a corporation but is distinctly protected in other areas of the consistution.”
The press is a category of business enterprise. There are corporations who collect and distribute news stories, in some cases from independent writers, in other cases from staff.
If corporations are putting out information that is beyond the advertising of a product or service, unattributed to any individual, it is fair game for scrutiny and possible regulation. If advertising can be regulated then certainly other publication beyond that scope coming from a corporation should also be subject to regulation.
Mr. Winger writes:
“The plain language of the First Amendment obviously applies to groups of all kinds as well as individuals.”
Wrong. The High (perhaps totally buzzed) Court has ruled that limits on campaign contributions are fine and dandy. Perhaps the Wise Ones could decide that corporations be allowed to contribute up to one dollar. More likely, since corporations are more equal than individuals in American politics, the Court could rule that contributions from corporations should be unlimited under the doctrine of Too Big To Fail To Seek Rent.
There are some really complex issues at play here: for instance, the press is a corporation but is distinctly protected in other areas of the consistution. A really good, detailed conversation about this was held on Bill Moyer’s show a couple weeks ago — between two leading voices, one on each side of the issue. Really worth a listen!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/profile.html
@1 I think that there is an implication in the language of the first amendment that that the freedom of speech involves the exercise of a right. If it was a blanket denial of authority to regulate, then congress could make no laws against libel or slander, or laws requiring accuracy in product labeling.
If a granted corporate charter calls for the corporation to conduct public education or provide information, then there would have to be a compelling reason for the government regulate that speech.
If there is no such purpose in the corporate charter, then the question is why would they be trying to influence an election in the first place. I would think securing the rights of individuals to free speech and the protection of the integrity of the electoral process would be compelling reasons to regulate.
I am impressed with Sotomayor’s position. I hope the other justices will come to see reason as well.
Natural law dictates that only humans have 1st amendment rights. The argument goes that humans, by their very nature, are endowed by their Creator with natural rights, such as the right to free speech.
A corporation, an artificial entity, cannot assert that by it was endowed by it’s creator with natural rights.
There is a big difference between the Creator of humans, and the creators of a corporation.
Corporations have to argue that they are natural persons to get the same rights as natural persons. Absurd!
If corporations want a right to free speech, they must come up with a better argument than they are human beings endowed with the same rights as human beings.
I support reforming limited corporate liability so that at least one shareholder must have unlimited liability. Thus corporations would be an elaborate form of limited partnership, where at least one full partner retains full personal liability for the corporation’s debts. What can corporations get away with that can’t be gotten away with under such partnerships?
Yeah, and then every member of the LNC would be joint and severally liable for slander, libel,
slip and falls at nat conventions, etc. etc. [Maybe not a bad thing but each would be liable even if they spoke out against the libel.]
I would expect that if that was the case they would disincorporate.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” So in the campaign finance case now pending, it is immaterial whether corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals. The plain language of the First Amendment obviously applies to groups of all kinds as well as individuals. And would you really think the New York Times, a corporation, could be told by the government not to say certain things? Or the Libertarian Party national committee (which is incorporated, I believe)? Or the ACLU (which is a corporation)?