Corporations and Constitutional rights

[TechBear_Seattle]

It is long-established that corporate entities -- businesses, clubs, charities, special interest groups, etc. -- have all of the rights to free speech recognized in an individual person. (501(3)(c) corporations will lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in political speech, but are not otherwise barred or penalized.) So that got me thinking: What about other constitutional rights?

Can a corporation declare itself an adherent of a particular religion (say, by requiring all employees to declare belief in a particular set of religious doctrines) and claim a First Amendment right to practice that religion without government interference? Can a corporation stockpile weapons and train employees in their use, citing a Second Amendment right to bear arms? Can the mass shredding of internal memos really be prohibited by law or regulation if the corporation claims that these memos might incriminate?

I'm genuinely curious: How extensive are the constitutional rights held by a corporation? Does anyone know of case law where a corporation has claimed constitutional rights other than just free speech?

[meegbear]

1. Corporations do not have to quarter troops

[whistle]

2. Are you thinking about starting your own Enron Corporation?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Nope

I read an essay this weekend about the free speech rights of corporations and that got me thinking. Nothing else. Honestly. :hi:

[thoughtanarchist]

4. Thom Hartmann made reference to an anecdote last week

where a corporation sought nomination to run for a political office.

I believe it was a gag, but it drives home the point that corporations are NOT individuals and corporations that assert rights of an individual should be challenged.

[HamdenRice]

5. Most DUers don't seem to understand this issue

Corporations do not have all the rights of free speech, or for that matter other constitutional rights, of natural individuals.

In the late 1800s, the Supreme Court decided that corporations had personhood for the purposes of the equal protection clause.

From the early decades of the 20th century, however, the Constitutional rights of corporations became increasingly limited. For example, corporations do not have unfettered free speech rights in all their communications. Corporate "commercial speech" is in a different category from individual speech, and can be strictly regulated. That's why trade laws and advertising laws can prevent corporations from making false claims about products.

In 1938, corporate rights were drastically distinguished from the rights of individuals in the Supreme Court case of Carolene Products. The most famous footnote in the history of Supreme Court decisions, footnote four, was a comment on the Court's decision that state and federal legislation that burdened corporate property was presumptively constitutional, but which added:

<quote>

There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the 14th.

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the 14th Amendments than are most other types of legislation...

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statues directed at particular religious...or nationaL...or racial minorities; whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry...

<quote>

Althought confusingly stated, because the Court was indicating how it might decide certain issues in the future, the footnote came to mean that statutes that burden corporate rights would not receive the same stringent review that would be imposed on statutes that burden (1) the civil liberties of natural individuals, (2) the voting rights of natural individuals, and (3) the civil rights of natural individual members of discrete ethnic, racial and religious groups.

This paved the way for the Warren Court's landmark decisions on civil liberties, voting rights and civil rights. During the voting rights cases, the Court specifically said that it is people, not economic interest groups who have voting rights.

The biggest blow to this tradition, and the beginning of the Court's backpedaling, began in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) which said that the contribution of money to political campaigns is a form of free speech in the context of campaign finance law. But the cases that developed on the basis of that case hardly mean that corporations have all the rights of natural individuals.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. It is not an easy issue to grasp

I hear constantly about how efforts to minimize, if not prevent, corporate interference in elections is a violation of the corporations' presumed right to free-speech. My question was about whether or not corporations have tried to expand on this constitutional right into other areas.

How are the boundaries of corporate free speech defined? What is to prevent a corporation from claiming other constitutional rights such as a right to freedom of religion or the right to bear arms or the right to not self-incriminate? And have there been any cases where a corporation has claimed such rights in court? (Presumably such cases have failed, but I think the rulings would be interesting.)

I ask so that I might fill the void of my ignorance, not to make unsubstantiated claims. :hi:

[CrispyQ]

6. Corporations are persons & therefore have full Constitutional rights.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

snip...

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

=====

This is an excellent site with lots of recommendations for further reading about the travesty called corporate personhood. Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection" provides many examples of how corporations claim their Constitutional rights to subvert regulation.


on edit: The page below provides a timeline of personhood rights -- both natural persons & artificial persons. You can see where each entity has made gains & loses.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

[HamdenRice]

7. Sorry, but this is an urban myth

Corporations have constitutional rights for some purposes. They do not have full constitutional rights.