"Corporate Personhood" dates back to at least 1819.

[Nye Bevan]

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "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." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

.....

The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

.....

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood, [7] even though the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment. [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Quite a few people seem to be under the misapprehension that Corporate Personhood is something new and scary that was concocted by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[cali]

1. hardly the main point of concern re corporate personhood rights

which really didn't become codified as a constitutional right extending beyond the right to make and enforce contracts until 1886 and Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific.

In any case, beyond correcting the record, what is your position on corporate personhood? Should it be limited? No? Why? or why not?

[Nye Bevan]

2. My position on Citizens United is the same as that of the ACLU.

I don't think a corporation should be banned from publishing a book during election season simply because the book says mean things about someone who is running for office.

[cali]

11. Ugh. I disagree firmly with the ACLU on this

Corporate money in elections is an enormous problem. It literally threatens our democracy. As if it's really about publishing a book during election season.

Why the ACLU Is Wrong About 'Citizens United'

Burt Neuborne was on the ACLU legal staff for eleven years, serving as its national legal director from 1981 to 1986.


I’ve marched proudly behind the ACLU’s First Amendment flag for almost fifty years. On campaign finance reform, however, I believe the ACLU’s adamant opposition to limits on massive campaign spending by the superrich gets the constitutional issues wrong. Limiting the power of a few individuals and corporations that exercise disproportionate political influence solely because of their enormous wealth has nothing to do with censoring a speaker’s message; it is desperately needed to preserve the integrity of the egalitarian democracy the First Amendment was designed to protect.

The campaign finance mess rests on three erroneous arguments the ACLU advanced in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case before the Supreme Court: (1) that spending unlimited amounts of money in an electoral campaign is “pure” speech entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection; (2) that any attempt to equalize political power by limiting massive electoral spending by the superrich is flatly unconstitutional; and (3) that “independent” expenditures on behalf of a candidate (as opposed to contributions to the candidate) are incapable of corrupting the democratic process. In 2010, in Citizens United, five Supreme Court justices made the Buckley system even worse by ruling that corporations have the same electoral free-speech rights as individuals, which unleashed a torrent of electoral spending by corporations seeking a financial return on their political investments.

I confess to having supported the ACLU position in Buckley. As the corrosive effects on democracy of uncontrolled campaign spending became increasingly clear, however, I joined several former ACLU leaders—Norman Dorsen, Aryeh Neier, John Shattuck and Mort Halperin—in opposing the organization’s campaign finance position. We have argued, before the Supreme Court and the ACLU board, that spending massive amounts of money during an election campaign is not “pure” speech when the spending level is so high that it drowns out competing voices by repeating the same message over and over at higher decibel levels; that a compelling interest in equality justifies preventing wealthy speakers from buying up an unfair proportion of the speech in settings like courtrooms, classrooms, town meetings, presidential debates and elections; that massive campaign spending by “independent” entities poses a serious risk of postelection corruption; and that corporations lack the attributes of conscience and human dignity that justify free-speech protection.

We’ll keep repeating those arguments. The shift of a single vote on the Supreme Court will make them law one day. But we needn’t wait for a new Court. The State of Montana has leveled a powerful challenge to Citizens United that is making its way to the Court. Since 1912, in an effort to shield its democracy from a takeover by out-of-state mining interests, Montana has banned corporate political spending. When the Montana Supreme Court recently stubbornly upheld the corporate electioneering ban in the teeth of Citizens United, corporations asked the US Supreme Court to overturn the Montana Court without a hearing. Instead, the justices temporarily stayed the Montana law and invited the parties to file papers discussing whether the case should be accepted for full-scale review. In reluctantly voting to stay the Montana statute even temporarily, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer asserted that Citizens United should be reconsidered because massive “independent” spending in the 2012 presidential election has undercut the assumption that such spending is incapable of corrupting democracy. The absurdity of the fiction that election winners will ignore huge debts owed to wealthy supporters who have spent millions to get them elected is now apparent even to the Supreme Court. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court recognized that massive independent spending by a litigant to elect a member of the West Virginia Supreme Court risked influencing his postelection rulings, requiring the judge to step down in cases involving his electoral sugar daddy. Step one in untangling the current mess is persuading the Supreme Court that in light of the experience in the 2012 presidential election, unlimited independent campaign expenditures pose a significant risk of postelection corruption of elected legislators and executive officials, as well as elected judges.

Read more: Why the ACLU Is Wrong About 'Citizens United' | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/article/166954/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united#ixzz2bOARp2WB
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook

[Nye Bevan]

13. I prefer the disclosure route to the book-banning route (nt)

[cali]

16. how about restrictions on money and no book bans?

your attempt to make this all about book banning is both laughable and lame.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Publishing a book costs money. Lots of money.

You restrict money, you restrict books.

[cali]

30. oh bullshit. it's entirely possible to thread that needle

Of course YOU know more than former Justice Stevens. How could I not recognize that? Silly me. the brilliant Nye agrees with Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. Right wingers agree with reactionary, activist right wing Justices. Not a huge surprise.

Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United case - Summary

The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. (2)

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office…[t]he financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. (2)

Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907…The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. (2-3, internal cite omitted)

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. (4)

Our colleagues’ suggestion that ‘we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,’ would be more accurate if rephrased to state that ‘we have asked ourselves’ to reconsider those cases. (4, internal cite omitted)

Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law. (6)

[T]here were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken. (16)

The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court. (23)

It is likewise nonsense to suggest that the FEC’s ‘business is to censor’…the majority’s characterization of the FEC is deeply disconcerting. (27, n.39)

Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech. (33)

n light of the Court’s effort to cast itself as the guardian of ancient values, it pays to remember that nothing in our constitutional history dictates today’s outcome. To the contrary, this history helps illuminate just how extraordinarily dissonant the decision is. (41)

It might also be added that 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. (76)

All of the majority’s theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, ‘that there is no such thing as too much speech’…n the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener’s exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process. (83, internal citations omitted)

The marketplace of ideas is not actually a place where items—or laws—are meant to be bought and sold[.] (85)

Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today. (85-86)

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. (90)
http://www.patriotsforchange.net/about-us/citizens-united---stevens-dissent-summary

From wiki:

On the other side, John Paul Stevens, the most senior justice in the minority, assigned the dissent to David Souter, who announced his retirement from the Court while he was working on it. The final draft went beyond critiquing the majority. Toobin described it as "air[ing] some of the Court's dirty laundry," writing that Souter's dissent accused Roberts of having manipulated Court procedures to reach his desired result—an expansive decision that, Souter claimed, changed decades of election law and ruled on issues neither party to the litigation had presented.[15]

According to Toobin, Roberts was concerned that Souter's dissent, likely to be his last opinion for the Court, could "damage the Court's credibility." He agreed with the minority to withdraw the opinion and schedule the case for reargument. However, when he did, the "Questions Presented" to the parties were more expansive, touching on the issues Kennedy had identified. According to Toobin, the eventual result was therefore a foregone conclusion from that point on, because the same majority had supported it.[15] Toobin's account has been criticized for drawing conclusions unsupported by the evidence in his article. [16]

On June 29, 2009, the last day of the term, the Court issued an order directing the parties to re-argue the case on September 9 after briefing whether it might be necessary to overrule Austin and/or McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to decide the case.[17] Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that in its prior motion for summary judgment Citizens United had abandoned its facial challenge of BCRA §203, with the parties agreeing to the dismissal of the claim.[18]

Justice Sotomayor sat on the bench for the first time during the second round of oral arguments. This was the first case argued by then-Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams argued for Citizens United, and former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman defended the statute on behalf of various supporters.[19] Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it "one of the most important First Amendment cases in years".[20

<snip>

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out that "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people's money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."[73]

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose opinions had changed from dissenting in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce to co-authoring (with Stevens) the majority opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission twelve years later, criticized the decision only obliquely, but warned that "In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon."[74]

Richard L. Hasen, professor of election law at Loyola Law School, argued that the ruling "is activist, it increases the dangers of corruption in our political system and it ignores the strong tradition of American political equality". He also described Justice Kennedy's "specter of blog censorship" as sounding more like "the rantings of a right-wing talk show host than the rational view of a justice with a sense of political realism".[75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

[Nye Bevan]

34. Oh Cali. Please make an effort to be civil.

The "bullshit" and the "dear" are quite unnecessary. Haven't you learned anything from all of those DU jury hides?

[cali]

44. fine. let me delete the dear. can you even respond to Justice Stevens' dissent?

(forget deleting bullshit)

Or do you prefer to keep desperately parroting "The ACLU supports it" ? Can you articulate why you believe that corporations deserve so many of the rights of personhood?

[Nye Bevan]

51. Say a future Republican Congress passed a law shutting down all political websites

within 6 months of any Federal election. Should that law be constitutional? Why wouldn't it be, if entities like DemocraticUnderground LLC are not people, and have no constitutional rights?

Say I care passionately about an issue, but cannot afford to make my voice heard, with the United States being so big. So I start a group of like-minded people, we all kick in 100 bucks, and we plan to screen a commercial to get our opinion out. Whoops, Congress just passed a law to say that we can't, in case it influences the upcoming election. And the group that I started is not a "person", therefore has no constitutional rights, so I am shit out of luck in challenging that law.

Say a red state passes a law saying that all Planned Parenthood offices can be searched, and have their stuff arbitrarily seized, for essentially no reason. Should this be unconstitutional? If Planned Parenthood, not being a "natural person", has no constitutional rights, then they are out of luck.

[Orrex]

60. You seem to be conflating "group" with "corporation"

If a bunch of like-minded people pool their money and issue a political statement for which the participants personally accept legal responsibility, does this not differ from a political statement issued by a corporation, which is a legal entity separate from its participants?

The abridgement of a corporation's "speech" is not the same as the abridgement of the speech of issue-aligned individuals.

[Nye Bevan]

64. DemocraticUnderground LLC is a legal entity separate from its participants.

So should it be constitutional to abridge the freedom of speech of this website?

[Orrex]

68. That's a different question from what you proposed

You asked about a bunch of like-minded people pooling their money. If we're talking about such freely assocating individuals, then their speech should not be abridged.


Can you provide a specific example of the kind of speech by DemocraticUnderground LLC that, in your view, should be protected?

[Nye Bevan]

75. "No corporate-owned website shall publish any web page that mentions any candidates for election,

within a 6 month period prior to said election".

I think such a law should not be constitutional.

[Orrex]

84. So Google, Facebook, and the internet as a whole would have to shut down?

Any server not wholly held by private individuals would qualify under the restriction that you posit.

Is Facebook legally liable for all information that it publishes by making that information accessible? That strikes me as an incorrect formulation.

Instead, the corporation might be enjoined from issuing any political statement on its own behalf during those six months. Thus you and I and Skinner and Earl and Elad could post whatever we want on DU, but DU Inc itself could not say "vote Democrat in 2016."


It is frankly absurd that the legal fiction known as a corporation should be held to have any inherent or inviolable rights whatsoever, or that these rights are on equal footing with those of actual human beings. By the current logic, Batman--not the trademarked intellectual property but the fictional character himself--should be able to sue an actual human being who defames him.

[KamaAina]

119. "This website" does not create speech.

The PEOPLE who post on it do.

[branford]

69. Generic "groups" and corporations do not materially differ under the Constitution.

That is precisely why unions, NGO's and various other organization strongly supported Citizens United in the case.

Do individual citizens who freely assemble give-up constitutional rights to political speech because they form a for-profit corporation rather than a union or political committee (both of which are separate legal entities from their members)?

[Orrex]

72. I don't believe that's correct

If you and I and fifty other people pool our money for some unitied purpose, that purpose is not legally distinct from the 52 people involved.

If you and I and fifty other people legally incorporate, then the resultant entity is legally distinct from the 52 people involved.

This distinction IMO is central and is the main reason why corporate "speech" should not enjoy the same robust protections as speech by actual people.

[branford]

90. Almost all groups pool their resources and act collectively through some form of corporate structure

In your example, the 52 person group almost always forms a non-profit to collect and administer the funds, among other logistical, legal and administrative reasons such as tax consequences. This fairly ubiquitous form of non-profit political association would be a separate legal entity from its members.

The law encourages this type of free association as a societal good for reasons cultural, economic and political (and even religious).

You effectively want to punish a group for associating in a manner which you do not approve by limiting their speech. Do you similarly feel that unions, environmental groups or Planned Parenthood (all strong supporters of Citizens United) should lose their political speech protections?

[Orrex]

93. An association is not a legal entity.

Therefore the rules that apply to a corporation do not apply to an association.


Give me a clear and solid reason why corporations should be granted some rights but not others. Why, for instance, should corporations not be entitled to vote or hold public office? Why is it acceptable to grant them some rights but not others? Where, exactly, is the line to be drawn?

[branford]

96. You need to more precisely define "association" for our discussion.

And depending on the nature of your hypothetical group's conduct and legal dealings, they might need to speak with the IRS.

I certainly don't mean to aggressive, but I am still curious about your opinions on whether organization such as unions, environmental groups or Planned Parenthood (all strong supporters of Citizens United) should lose the same political speech protections now afforded to for-profit corporations? The distinctions you make, if any, can help me better address your concerns.

[Orrex]

107. It would depend upon the legal nature of the organization

Here's the definition I'm using for "association:"

Association
A group of people who have joined together for a common purpose. Unlike a corporation, an association is not a legal entity. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant.

--from Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary

If a Union or Planned Parenthood is a corporation, then that corporation should be subject to the same restrictions re: speech as Fox News or Clear Channel. Obviously I identify with the likely political views of Planned Parenthood more than with Clear Channel, but it's a sauce-for-the-goose sort of deal.

[branford]

114. You are intellectually honest.

I asked the question about Planned Parenthood and unions as some try to justify their political actions, spending and speech, but not for-profit corporations. Hypocrisy often abounds, and I am certainly not immune.

As for the "association" language with respect to political speech, current law in fact makes little distinction other than issues like certain taxes and other benefits. Courts are very leery about letting government determine which groups are worthy of free (or free-er) speech. The current IRS scandal is but one somewhat related example of the government favoring or opposing political groups. Ironically, acting collectively without certain easy, ubiquitous and entirely uncontroversial forms of incorporation (for instance, a small non-profit political group) may create certain unforeseen or unintended problems like prematurely hitting your individual or aggregate spending caps for campaign contributions, etc. You might also be interested to note that a current case winding its way through the courts is challenging aggregate campaign spending limits (not amounts to individual candidates, but rather total amounts that could be given to all candidates during an election cycle.). The outcome of this case is being watched closely as many believe it is a prelude to directly challenging all spending restriction to campaigns.

The constitution guarantees your right to freely associate as well as engage in political speech. Absent very unusual circumstances, the form you take to associate cannot effect these political rights. Even if the association is a separate legal entity, such entity is really just a legal fiction in order that you may more easily take collective action, a recognized public and political good. Most importantly, whatever form that association may take, unincorporated, non-profit, union, NGO or even Walmart, such entity still cannot vote or hold office, but nevertheless still speaks for its members.

As another poster on this thread correctly observes, the focus in this debate is educating the public about the issues, not who's buying advertising space. Remember, Obama won re-election even with all this "evil" shadow money, and Democrats are currently out-raising Republicans.

[branford]

35. I have no desire to "threat the needle" when it comes to the First Amendment. n/t

[cali]

40. did you even read what Justice Stevens wrote?

[branford]

54. Absolutely.

Not only have I fully read the Citizens United decision, I'm also a practicing attorney and fully appreciate both the legal nuances and implications. I simply disagree with Stevens and the other dissents. I'm usually on the side of the ACLU, and every once it a very rare while, the conservative get something right.

It's not often that you get to see the ACLU and Justice Thomas on the same side of an issue. Good times.

On a far more serious note, just because you find something purportedly "bad" in the electoral process, it does not mean that any and all options are available to correct the perceived wrong. Many elections reforms have historically run afoul of the constitution and subsequently struck down, even by liberal courts. I happen to treasure the First Amendment and want to see it expanded and protected, particularly in the realm of politics where it is most needed.

You might have also noticed that President Obama was still re-elected despite all the nefarious shadow money.

I respect that you find the decision abhorrent. If so, amending the constitution is your best option. However, be very careful what you wish for and beware the law of unintended consequences.

[treestar]

67. Agreed

I happened to be in Australia during their elections. They had a law that the candidates had to stop campaigning at some time period, I think 24 hours, before the election day. What a great idea! Except it could not possibly pass muster for the US under the First Amendment. (It may have been an informal rule rather than a law, which we could do, but gentlemanly respect for that type of thing has little chance in this culture).

[Nye Bevan]

71. In countries with no First Amendment, governments have much more flexibility in banning speech. (nt)

[branford]

82. And that is not a good thing!

[cali]

46. so you believe that corporations are entittle to most of the rights of people? Why?

[Nye Bevan]

57. "Liberal groups lead in money race"

Democrats and liberals — traditionally more skeptical about the role of big money and mega-donors in politics — beat Republicans in the outside money battle for the first half of the year.

Groups backing Democratic candidates and causes in 2014 and 2016 all posted robust fundraising numbers, as did organizations supporting President Barack Obama’s top second-term priorities, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance reports filed Wednesday. Conservative groups — accustomed to dominating the outside money game — underperformed expectations with lackluster hauls.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/liberal-fundraising-2014-2016-elections-95031.html#ixzz2bORB0usL

[cali]

77. that's simply not the point. Go read Stevens' dissent.

[branford]

58. Why not?

The Constitution protects not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of assembly.

I cannot fathom why permissible political speech (the speech that enjoys the most protection under the constitution) becomes prohibited simply because individuals join together (in a coroporation, union, NGO, PAC, etc.) in a permissible and legal manner to more effectively advocate their political interests.

I think its not the underlying legal premise that bothers you, but rather that corporations, in particular, more often advocate speech that you disagree with and politically oppose. You do not seem to be as offended when unions contribute large sums or runs ads that agree with the position of our party and candidates.

[cali]

79. you can't? how odd. And you're wrong. Both the shaky legal premise

(again, read what such folks as Tribe have to say as well as the liberal Justices' dissent.)

And do grab a clue: I haven't said word one about unions. Nope, I don't think Unions should be able to donate large sums of money any
more than corporations should).

I actually believe that elections should be publicly funded- but that's another story.

Oh well, maybe you should forgo the mind reading attempts as you're so poor at it.

[treestar]

70. They can't vote

That's the bottom line. The rest is all convenience. And for us, too. What if you are injured by a defect in a Ford? You can sue Ford, Inc. and don't have to find every shareholder, locate them all, name them all, and track them down to serve them, and fight with their individual lawyers about whether Ford is liable. That's the main reason for it.

Just buying a car, you'd have to buy it from a million different people.

It would boil down to making transactions from individual to individual, and the economy would expand only very slowly.

[branford]

122. +1. Similarly, corporations cannot hold elected office.

[OneGrassRoot]

43. +1 n/t

[Yo_Mama]

87. Especially since under the law, ACLU itself would be deprived of the right to publish

Because of corporations (associations of people) don't have civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution, then neither does ACLU.

I think the Citizens United decision was correctly decided. Obviously I'm a minority here.

No matter how much I think this one over, I still remain stuck on the idea that if people lose their rights when they act together (corporately), then only the rich will be heard. That cannot be a good outcome.

[Zorra]

3. Most of us know that it is old and scary, but more dangerous than ever now. nt

[RC]

4. The United States is the only nation that confers personhood on a business.

These businesses can therefore play both ends against the middle. Using either the personhood or the business, whichever is to their advantage.

[MicaelS]

19. Even though I oppose Corporate Personhood,

And would like to see an Amendment repealing it, there are points that could bite DU square in the ass.

Since DU is after all a business, and is registered as a LLC, what happens if Corporate Personhood is repealed?

Since the proposed Amendment would have Corporations defined as "artificial beings that exist at the whim of elected officials" what happens if some officials want to search DU's records, servers and all their user data to compile a list of member for whatever purpose? What if someone claims DU is partisan, and trying to unduly influence elections? What if the Fairness Doctrine gets re-implemented, and DU is forced to give equal time to Conservatives?

[Nye Bevan]

37. A Republican Congress could pass a law shutting down websites like DU during election season.

After all, DemocraticUnderground LLC is not a "person", so there would be no constitutional protection against such a law.

Would this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But I prefer to have the Constitution guarantee that it cannot.

[Orrex]

39. If corporate personhood is a legal reality, how does that square with the 13th?

How can anyone own a person?

[MicaelS]

42. Oooh good point.

Never thought of that.

[NCTraveler]

95. Corporate personhood does not give corporations...

all of the rights of a person. It does not make the law view corporations exactly as blood and flesh.

[Orrex]

109. So we can pick and choose which rights we grant to a corporation?

Great! Then there's nothing to stop us from limiting those rights in very specific ways.

If that's the case, then we can certainly establish whatever rules we like to restrict corporate political speech. Problem solved!

[former9thward]

63. Don't know where you are getting that from.

All countries that have a heritage in English common law have corporate personhood. The most well known English case was Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897) AC 22 which upheld the doctrine of corporate personhood. After that decision the concept spread to all countries in the British commonwealth.

[RC]

65. I used to date a a Canadian.

She wrote business plane for a living. She didn't know anything about corporate personhood for Canada. She was quite well informed about how businesses are run and operate and why they do what they do.

[former9thward]

85. Was she a business lawyer?

Without the concept of personhood it would be impossible for corporations to make contracts. Every shareholder would have to sign the contract. Every shareholder could be sued. Every shareholder could file suits in the name of the corporation. Does this happen in Canada? No. Canada has corporate personhood. Not exactly like the U.S. because we have a somewhat different supreme law (Constitution).

[RC]

92. Bullshit

You have no clue. Corporation does not automatically mean personhood. The concept of corporate personhood was completely foreign to her. She use to be well paid to give business seminars. How could she not know?

[former9thward]

105. Can't answer your question because I don't know her.

[tritsofme]

128. Sounds like your imagined definition of corporate personhood

is different from the actual legal concept.

[RC]

129. Start at the Head Note:

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[7]

<SNIP>

Significance

In his dissent in the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations. [...] The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments. [...] The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."[9]

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions. [...] Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[treestar]

73. There are corporations and LLCs in other countries

There is no point in having them if they don't have personhood. It is about contracting with them and suing and being sued, buying and owning property. Donating money, whether to charity or campaigns.

[RC]

81. You're kidding, correct?

Personhood is an uniquely American concept. Except for a filing clerk's misinterpretation we would not have it today either.
Corporations have existed for many hundreds of years with no thought of then have personhood. Being incorporated is simply a government granted charter to do business.

[treestar]

98. You're the one who is kidding

So how do corporations of other countries operate? They can't make contracts, the shareholders have to? It's the very purpose of incorporation that many people can invest in one business. It goes back to the East Indies Company.

[RC]

130. Only in the United States do corporations have the rights of personhood.

All other countries have limited and spelled out rights.

[hlthe2b]

5. "misapprehension"? I think you need a dictionary...

That said, beyond your seeming desire to defend corporate personhood on a Democratic forum leaves me speechless, you also do not seem to understand the ramifications of "Citizens United"....


If it were a mere misunderstanding on your part, I'd take the time to try to explain, even though I'd be late leaving for a meeting. But, somehow, I think you would not be willing to correct your MISUNDERSTANDING.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Why do I "need a dictionary"?

That's precisely what I meant.

Oh, and pardon me for agreeing with the ACLU about something.

[hlthe2b]

21. You agree with the corporatists, that's for sure...

the ACLU is responding to a very specific aspect.... Not the free-for-all designed to turn the populace into a modern day serfdom created by your buds.

And, no... we aren't "misapprehending". We understand quite well what it is that you are supporting and we are DAMNED angry.

[Nye Bevan]

22. "corportists"? I think you need a dictionary (nt)

[hlthe2b]

26. No.. I need to get the sticking "a" key fixed. Big FAIL to you (in a big line of FAILS)

[Orrex]

61. I believe tht should be "Big Fil"

[treestar]

74. You simply don't understand it

It is not sinister.

Without it, we'd all live in small towns and just deal with each other personally.

Whenever you buy something, you are giving a corporation money. You couldn't live in a modern economy without it.

Nothing would happen on a large scale. They've existed and had personhood since the 17th century.

[hlthe2b]

89. No.. YOU don't understand that underliying this attempt to dismantle any kind of regulation on

corporations is the demise of any chance for success for those not already rich. Not to mention the unfettered risks to our health and safety. Not to mention the demise of democracy with corporate money buying all elections.

I find it incredibly ugly that so-called "progressives" would support such a thing.

[treestar]

99. Think about it for a few seconds

Don't go off sounding so loony that the freepers can point and laugh and say that's why "libtards" are so ignorant.

[hlthe2b]

104. I suggest YOU think twice before calling a fellow DUer a "libtard"

For someone promoting RW memes, I guess I really can't be surprised.

Welcome to ignore... What a hateful thing to say.

[treestar]

116. I was quoting my imaginary freeper

the amount of fail in your reaction is legend.

[hlthe2b]

124. ^^^Your "imaginary" freeper... Oh, now that just says it ALL...^^^

I sincerely hope others see what lengths you will take to disparage both fellow DUers and the mentally or physically challenged.

[treestar]

125. I did not disparage any DUer

Anyone who can read can tell that much.

[hlthe2b]

126. On the contrary.. you fool no one and I would bet many are taking note of your behavior.

I've never had an issue with you before, but to call me or anyone else or anything else a libtard. You are damned over the line (I'll remain civil and leave it there) and YOU KNOW IT.

[treestar]

127. I did not call anyone a libtard

I quoted a freeper as that is what they would say. An imaginary freeper.

Who bothers to take notes of people on DU? And you deliberate misreading of my earlier post is quite obvious.

[hlthe2b]

131. Your words are there for all to see. Ugly as they are. VERY VERY VERY ugly. Own them.

you seem to want to insult anyone who disagrees with you and I can assure you, calling them a "Libtard" is about the ugliest, most despicable and inexcusable way to do so.

So just damn OWN your ugliness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. The definitive book on the subject is "unequal protection" by Thom Hartmann. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

7. But that won't fit in

blue insets.

[Ohio Joe]

9. Yeah.. We should all just accept corporate rule...

[Nye Bevan]

10. Bit of a non-sequitur there.

I believe that Honey Boo Boo's entire family has constitutional rights. That doesn't mean that I think they should rule us.

[cali]

12. haha. YOU talking about non sequiturs after posting a whopper of one in my thread about

the TPA?

[Ohio Joe]

14. You support CU...

Tells me all I need to know about you.

[Nye Bevan]

15. So does the ACLU. But then they also defended the right of the Klan to march.

Screw 'em.

[cali]

18. no, not screw THEM.

screw the CU decision. Have you even read the dissent? Oh never mind. You're on the right on issue after issue and policy after policy. At least you're consistent.

I can disagree with the ACLU on this decision- as does a longtime ACLU legal director- and still support them. I know such a concept boggles the minds of those who see things in very simplistic terms, but there you go.

[Nye Bevan]

20. "Screw the CU decision"? For which the ACLU filed an amicus brief, and still supports?

And I don't think that my positions on issues are all that far out of the DU mainstream. My posts are very, very rarely hidden by DU juries. Unlike those of certain other DUers.

[cali]

47. and your posts are very rarely supported by most DUers let alone

recced.

Yes, you are far to the right of the DU mainstream.

[Nye Bevan]

53. Should "number of people ignoring you" be a yardstick

for how far someone is out of the DU mainstream?

[cali]

86. sure, if that's what you want to believe.

I think that has more to do with my being abrasive than my political positions.

My point is simple: More often than not you are aligned with right wingers on issue after issue. Most Duers aren't.

Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Do you support the President's attempt to pass fast track in the Congress?

Do you support drone attacks, including signature strikes and double tapping?

Did you support the Iraq War?

Do you support the death penalty?

Do you support the chained CPI?

[cali]

103. that's not evident. no one is demanding that "all three hundred million of us" be invited to

in on the TPP negotiations. What people are objecting to is that those negotiating it such as Islam Siddiqui, Chief Ag negotiator and former lobbyist for Monsanto and Bayer and DuPont, are shutting out those with opposing views and inviting in hundreds of corporate representatives. People are objecting to the secrecy. It clear you know very little about the TPP or TPA. No, fast track (TPA) isn't in any way an alternative to what's going on in Congress. That comment reveals that you know little about it.

I don't see why it's so difficult to make informed and grounded observations about the NSA issues or drones. There is so much information available about these issues. If you do the research you should easily be able to make observations grounded in facts.

As for Social Security. I don't see why people are so sure that it won't be there in 30 years. If we reform immigration that should increase the workforce.

[Nye Bevan]

106. Let's not turn this into the McCarthy Hearings.(nt)

[treestar]

78. Are you sure you want the DU mainstream to be thought of

as uninformed, emotional persons willing to jump on any bandwagon so long as it's something to complain about? And double down from there and refuse to be further informed?

You're attacking the messenger, which is hilarious. The OP is just a statement of some law.

[Ohio Joe]

24. Yeah...

I know exactly who spouts bullshit like this... teabaggers and other corporate tools.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Yeah. That ACLU, always siding with the teabaggers and "corporate tools". (nt)

[cali]

32. man, you're clinging to the ACLU decision here like a drowning person to a splinter of wood

I'm sure there are positions taken by the ACLU you disagree with. One doesn't agree with organizations or politicians one supports 100% of the time.

[Nye Bevan]

36. I literally cannot think of an ACLU position that I disagree with.

But then I have always been a big fan of the Bill of Rights.

[Ohio Joe]

38. 'Corporations are people my friend'

Nice company you keep

[Nye Bevan]

45. And interestingly enough, I seem to support President Obama more enthusiastically than most DUers

on this board. Funny, that.

[cali]

48. So? That hardly qualifies you to call yourself a liberal or progressive

you support a lot of things that repubs support too.

[Ohio Joe]

49. Well... That makes it ok to support corporate take over of our political system...

What other teabagger bullshit do you support?

[Nye Bevan]

52. I join with the AFL-CIO in supporting Keystone XL (nt)

[Ohio Joe]

55. What a surprise...

I bet you could find some left group to support any issue... Neat approach.

[Nye Bevan]

56. I agree with Ron Paul on legalizing pot.

So very occasionally I also agree with those on the right.

[Ohio Joe]

62. You manage to agree with lots of right wing positions

I have a red card but still don't agree with racist shit bags.

[Nye Bevan]

66. What kind of "red card"?

Red card may refer to:

A penalty card that is shown in many sports after a rules infraction
A suit (cards) of hearts or diamonds
Red Card (album), 1976 release by Streetwalkers
RedCard 20-03, 2002 extreme football video game
Operation Red Card, 2006 Motion Picture Association anti-piracy drive in Asia
American Express Red, credit card
Target REDcard, a credit card issued by Target Corporation
In capital punishment in Iraq, a legal notice that execution is imminent
Industrial Workers of the World membership card
For wildland fire suppression, a U.S. professional certification
A drinking game

[Ohio Joe]

83. It is legal weed without your friend pauls support

I understand why you don't know about it.

[Nye Bevan]

101. Got it. Good for you.

I support not only the legalization of marijuana but also a general amnesty for all non-violent pot offenders. Along with the drones, probably the issue where I differ from Obama the most is on the crackdown against medical marijuana dispensaries.

[hlthe2b]

23. +++++

that the poster hides behind the fact that the ACLU supports a very narrowly defined aspect of corporate personhood pretty much clinches it.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Well, except that they filed an amicus brief in the case and still support the decision (nt)

[hlthe2b]

28. As most with any honesty would state here... ACLU is in a position to support many things

that we may not agree with. Yet we can still support the ACLU on other issues.

And, once again YOU FAIL. Good little CORPORATIST, though....

[Nye Bevan]

31. Yes. Many people love the ACLU when they are supporting constitutional rights that they approve of,

and hate the ACLU when they support constitutional rights that they disapprove of.

Your approach is not at all unusual.

[branford]

41. It reminds me of many Second Amendment discussions.

All constitutional rights should be interpreted as broadly as possible, except those that I do not agree with.

-Abortion rights (which I agree with) literally based upon "penumbras" and "emanations" concerning privacy rights nowhere actually mentioned in the constitution - Of course.

- Explicit First Amendment rights of free speech, free association and assembly, and a free press that permits both unions and corporations alike to most effectively (money!) advocate their political interests - Hell, no. (?)


Damn that far right, fascist ACLU!!!

[hlthe2b]

50. and yet another...

who seems to have taken a wrong turn at the cyberjunction.

[branford]

80. I agree with a classically liberal interpretation of the ENTIRE constitution

That not only includes easy issues like supporting a woman's right to an abortion, but also expansive political speech rights like those protected in Citizens United.

What I find the most ironic is that unions and other liberal groups have benefited from the ruling, and my understanding is that Democratic causes have actually raised more money that conservative groups.

[treestar]

76. Not the same thing at all

Our problem is we buy from the corporations. We give them the money. If they use it to donate to campaigns, there's only one way to shut that down. Quit buying from them.

If money has too much influence in politics, that's another question. It should be tackled there. Get people thinking about issues and ignoring slick commercials. Some of us can do it. So can others.

[bemildred]

29. And we are going to correct that mistake going forward. nt

[LWolf]

33. And slavery, and misogyny, and inequality,

reach much further back than that. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make Corporate Personhood okay, either.

There's a clear division over the term "corporation" anyway. Broadly, its an organization of people. In a more narrow context, it's an entity that exists to increase profit at all costs, without regard to human or planetary harm.

I believe that the opposition to corporate "personhood" is directed at that more narrow definition.

[treestar]

59. Yes, some education is necessary on that

It is not the horror that people think it is. If suing for an injury, you'd have to sue and serve all of Ford's shareholders, for example, and that would be a real burden on the little guy.

Other collective entities are the same: trusts, estates, nonprofits and others.

[branford]

91. You certainly appreciate the actual issues at play. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

97. If anyone's interested in learning the facts, Thom Hartmann has written the seminal work

on this topic in his book Unequal Protection. The Wikipedia article linked in the OP is both inaccurate and misleading, but then that's what we forget about Wikipedia, it is not authoritative and is regularly used to promote specific agendas.

Jim Hightower discusses it here if all you want is a synopsis.

[Nye Bevan]

100. And he has chosen to make it available on Amazon Kindle for only $9.99,

quite a bargain compared to the print list price of $20.95.

I love the increased availability of books on Kindle. No need to pollute the environment by driving to the bookstore.

http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-ebook/dp/B003M5HK4Y/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1375981369&sr=8-4

[dballance]

102. If you don't like Corporate Personhood then I've got a deal for you.

I just started an internship with Move to Amend

Move to Amend has two important goals 1) End corporate personhood and 2) End money as free speech. Both corporate personhood and money as free speech came out of court decisions - namely Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and the OP referenced Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Therefore, the only way to overturn those decisions and wrestle power away from corporations and other big-money interests now is with a constitutional amendment.

What is corporate Personhood?
There are two conceptions of "corporate personhood". The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this.

However, "corporate personhood" also commonly refers to the Supreme Court-created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of "corporate personhood" corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever mention corporations. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted so-called "rights" that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance.

For example, the Supreme Court has:

** prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. Marshall v Barlow's, 1978
** struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.
** prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee, 1933)
** struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action through what, theoretically, is the purest form of democracy. (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti).

The notorious 1886 case of [link:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=394Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad] is just one in a long series of Supreme Court cases that entrenched "corporate personhood" in law. Justices since have struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations wield ever-increasing control over jobs, natural assets, politicians, even judges and the law.

Move to Amend believe corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges citizens and their elected representatives willfully grant them. Our Amendment will reverse the Court’s invention of "corporate personhood" and limit corporations to their proper role: doing business.

Money as Free Speech

I think everyone here on DU is probably familiar with the Citizens United vs the FEC decision by the Supreme Court. The simple summary of Citizens United decision is that it granted corporations the ability to use money as free speech. It removed spending limits in campaigns. The result is, corporations with their vast and deep pockets can use money as speech to drown out the speech of regular, real, human people.

We saw the rise of the super pacs and all those dubious 401(c)4 non-profits during the last election after the Citizens United decision. The result is we had a presidential election in which over a billion dollars was spent on candidates and campaigns. Either directly or indirectly.

Until we wrest away control of our government from the hands of the large corporations and big money interests we will continue to get more ALEC-written laws like the FL Stand Your Ground law or US Chamber of Commerce written laws concerning minimum wages and worker rights (mostly lack of rights). We'll get more of ALEC and US Chamber of Commerce bought and paid for politicians on every level from local and state to the federal level passing laws favorable to them. We'll get more Right to Work (work more for less pay and benefits) states.

You can start out by simply signing Move to Amend's petition that states simply "We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights." Sign Petition

I'm very committed to this work. If you have questions or would like to become involved here are some links.

Suggested Amendment Text

Move to Amend home page
Move to Amend FAQs
Recommended Reading

[Nye Bevan]

108. That proposed amendment would allow the police to search the offices of DemocraticUnderground LLC,

without having a reason, and confiscate the stuff of DemocraticUnderground LLC, without paying compensation. Unions, corporations, LLCs, and nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood would have not just their free speech rights but all of their constitutional rights (such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure) stripped away.

This would be a more appropriate amendment that would allow the Citizens United decision to be overridden:

Insofar as it relates to freedom of speech, the First Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to speech that refers to candidates in Federal or State elections, within the six month period prior to such elections.

(For the record I would oppose such an amendment).

[dballance]

110. It puts all artificial entities on equal ground.

Yes, that proposed amendment would put all for-profit, non-profit corporations, and unions on an equal footing. But it DOES NOT mean that artificial entities cannot be granted rights. It just makes it easier to define those rights when it comes to artificial entities and reins in the courts from granting them practically unlimited rights.

Read the text:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Note the section I underlined. It states that artificial entities' rights are determined by the people. So what that really means is this amendment is not the end, but the beginning of the battle. Once we pass this amendment then the federal, state, and local governments will have to pass laws defining what rights and to what extent of those rights the artificial entities have.

Try to remember the Constitution is a broad framework. It's not intended to cover every situation and every instance. That's where federal, state and local laws fill in the void - just as they do now.

The point of the amendment is that the Constitution, as MTA sees it along with many others, was written to protect "We the People." When the Constitution was written it most certainly didn't intend that artificial entities like corporations would be considered "people."

[Nye Bevan]

111. The Texas Legislature would be positively licking its chops to clamp down on Planned Parenthood

were that amendment to pass.

[dballance]

112. You're probably right.

That's where a Federal law would need to be passed to prevent the states from doing what you're thinking. The federal law would, of course, supersede any state laws.

I won't for a moment say that passing the proposed amendment is the panacea, the be-all end-all solution. It will be messy.

[Orrex]

115. How can property own property?

Other than corporations, is there any form of property that can legally own property?

Why should corporations be granted this rare and exclusive right?

[branford]

117. Yes. For instance, certain trusts and estates can own property.

[Orrex]

118. Bravo--totally overlooked those.

Honest question: do such entities also enjoy "personhood" status?

[branford]

121. For all intent and purposes, yes.

Trusts and estates are often indistinguishable from other corporate and related entities. For example, both trusts and estates can potentially own corporations than manage trusts the run corporations, and so on, and so forth.

Generally trusts may engage in political advocacy, including spending money on issue advertising like the subject matter in Citizens United.

However, in all fairness, the grantor of the trust usually places strict conditions on the power and duties of the trustee, although this is not a requirement. Also, there are many types of trusts allowed under various state laws for different express purposes. Many of these specific instruments would likely not permit advocacy.

[KamaAina]

120. I'll believe corporations are people

when Texas executes one. Or when one gets thrown in jail.

[branford]

123. Corporations aren't people, per se, they are associations of people acting collectively.

And Texas would have no compunctions about jailing or executing a senior executive of a corporation (or anyone else).

Corporations are also subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdictions where they reside and operate. Many a corporate executive or employee has been jailed for illegal conduct committed on behalf of, and during their course of employment and duties for, their corporation.