Fighting Corporate Personhood: An introduction and resource guide

[marmar]

From ReclaimDemocracy:


NOTE: You can link to any of the documents, court cases, organizations or case studies listed below from this page: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/


Introduction to Corporate Personhood

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.

Read our draft constitutional amendment to revoke corporate constitutional "rights" and offer your thoughts.

Overviews

Our Hidden Corporate History
This overview of the rise of corporate power in the U.S. also is available as a 2 page flier (pdf), making a great handout.

Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers
by Jan Edwards (pdf)

Current Controversies Relating to Corporate Personhood
A Blow Against the Corporate Empire
A California county blazes a trail that should inspire action in many other communities.

Wal-Mart Lawyers Claim Class-Action Suit Would Violate Corporation's "Civil Rights"

Democracy v Corporate "Free Speech" -- Corrupting the Ballot Initiative Process

Digging Deeper: Articles, Briefs & Books
Recommended Articles

The Hijacking of the 14th Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom (pdf)

Santa Clara Blues by William Meyers (pdf). Also in HTML format

Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation by Richard Grossman and Frank Adams

Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights by Carl Mayer.
Recommended for lawyers or those interested in a detailed legal history (70 pp html).

When Silence is Not Golden: Negative Corporate Free Speech by Dean Ritz

Abolish Corporate Personhood by Molly Morgan and Jan Edwards.

The PBS program NOW compiled some useful resources on the topic for this 2005 episode.

Recommended Books

The People's Business by Charlie Cray and Lee Drutman

Gangs of America by Ted Nace

Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann

When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten

The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960 by Morton Horwitz (for those interested in detailed legal background). See also Volume 1: 1780-1860.

Significant U.S. Court Cases in the Evolution of Corporate Personhood / Commercial Free Speech

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
Corporate charters are ruled to have constitutional protection.

Munn v. State of Illinois (1876)
Property cannot be used to unduly expropriate wealth from a community (later reversed).

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights. Several articles linked above detail how this happened.

Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)

Lochner v. New York (1905)
States cannot interfere with "private contracts" between workers and corporation -- marks the ascension of "substantive due process."

Liggett v. Lee (1933)
Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations' "due process" rights.

Ross v. Bernhard (1970)
7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations.

U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976)
A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Marshall v. Barlow (1978)
The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations -- federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives, even spending by corporate political action committees. Spending money to influence politics is now a corporate "right." Justice Rehnquist's dissent is a recommended read.
Related articles: * Ballot Initiatives Hijacked * Behind the Powell Memo

Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980)
This oft-cited decision concerns a state ban on ads promoting electricity consumption.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Upheld limits on corporate spending in elections.

Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)

Nike v Kasky (2002)
Nike claims California cannot require factual accuracy of the corporation in its PR campaigns. California's Supreme Court disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal, then issued a non-ruling in 2003.

Campaigns to Revoke Corporate Free Speech

Nike v Kasky was one of the highest profile court cases to date regarding "corporate free speech." The case concluded with a settlement on September 12, 2003. We have preserved the large body of material we produced and collected relating to this case, which represents all side of the issue here. We soon will add a new, more general page focusing on commercial speech issues.

We used Kasky v. Nike to advance public understanding and legal arguments against granting corporations constitutional rights. Our work included filing a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, doing talk shows around the country, and confronting the ACLU on its support for corporate personhood at the expense of human freedom. Please read and endorse our sign-on letter to the ACLU, which urges their directors to reverse their advocacy of corporate personhood. This 3 page letter offers a more detailed argument than the above flyer and links to our endorsement form to urge the ACLU to change position. We hope to resume actively campaigning to change the ACLU from within when funding allows.

In summer, 2004, we initiated a new campaign aimed at revoking corporate "rights" to influence ballot initiatives and referenda (related article). We'll publish much more on this front in the months ahead.

Groups Challenging Corporate Personhood

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
has extensive information available as part of a study packet: Challenging Corporate Power

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
does notable work to revoke corporate power in Pennsylvania and is the source for two of the initiatives listed below

The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy
helped inspire the work of many other organizations listed here, ours included

The Aurora Institute
educates and organizes on corporate power issues in Canada, where corporate legal history has closely matched that of the U.S.

The New Rules Project
serves as a clearinghouse for democracy-enhancing local and state legislation, much of it challenging corporate power

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
works effectively at the community level in California

Redwood Coast Alliance for Democracy
has several informative articles and works on related issues in Northern California.

Initiatives Challenging Corporate "Rights"

Pennsylvania Township Passes Ordinance Rejecting Corporate "Rights" -- a First in U.S. Report on the Porter Township Ordinance

The Wayne Township Ordinance This successfully enacted legislation bars recidivist corporations from operating in the Township.

Corporate Personhood Ordinance Model legislation to revoke personhood locally

Non-binding resolutions have been passed in Point Arena and Arcata, CA and, most recently, in Berkeley, as a symbolic stand and educational tool.

Anti-corporate Farming Laws This Nebraska law is one of several such state laws denying corporate "rights" in agriculture.

Party Platform Planks Opposing Corporate Personhood In June 2004, Washington state's Democratic Party became the latest to officially oppose corporate personhood -- a tactic that lends itself to being used in almost any locale. Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Maine have passed similar policies.

Two New Jersey legislative bills would revoke corporate personhood within the state and ban corporate political spending. View either the first or second draft bill in pdf.

Other Websites of Note

Unequal Protection This website by Unequal Protection author Thom Hartmann includes model ordinances for every state which would eliminate Constitutional privileges for corporations within individual municipalities and another set to amend state constitutions.

[Czolgosz]

1. Kucinich (and to a lesser degree, Edwards) rule on this issue.

[Cerridwen]

2. K & R

Very interesting reading at that site.

Thanks for the information and the link.

[marmar]

3. No problem....

To me, this issue is at the core of so much of what ails America and the world.

[Cerridwen]

4. I agree

There are many things which contribute to our skewed world view - this one is a biggie and needs to be undone.

I found the timeline which shows the chipping away of our rights for the benefit of corporations - I've been looking for that timeline.

:evilgrin:

[Terri S]

21. I SO agree with you!

I have been screaming about this to anyone who would listen for years now. This is, without doubt, where we started heading for the toilet, and until something is done to remedy it, no true reform will ever be sufficient. Great post!! Thank you!!

[cascadiance]

5. We need a TRUE constitutional constructionist on this issue for next SCOTUS judge!

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R thanks. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

7. ReclaimDemocracy.org is one of the few places addressing the real issue . . .

that underlies all other issues, from war to environmental destruction to healthcare to arms proliferation to food safety to you name it . . . until we address (and solve) the issue of corporate influence and control, nothing much else is going to change . . .

thanks for posting this . . . it's the issue that every Democratic candidate needs to place at the top of his/her platform . . .

(chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none, imo . . . damn shame, because it means real change won't be happening anytime soon . . .)

[marmar]

13. "it's the issue that every Democratic candidate needs to place at the top of his/her platform "

Agreed. But they've got to shed the corporatist DLC overlords.

[bobthedrummer]

8. K&R

[alfredo]

9. This is an issue we need to take on. K&R

[snot]

10. I'd just like to mention

I'm sympathetic, but it seems to me that there are other important aspects of corporations that need to be considered:

(1) Their managers are almost completely insulated from personal liability for the consequences of their actions. For all practical purposes , they have to be convicted of crimes in order to face any real penalties that aren't covered by insurance purchased by the corporation.

(2) Although they theoretically serve the interests of their shareholder "owners," who are supposed to be able to have a meaningful, democratic vote on the directors who hire and fire management and control the general direction of the corporation, in fact corporations are much less democratic than even our governments, since senior management basically chooses their buddies to be the directors, few shareholders know anything about any of them, and so it's extremely rare for there ever to be any director on the board who is truly chosen by the shareholders.

[loudsue]

11. K & R This topic really needs to come before the American people through a grass roots

movement. It has gotten to the place that the future of a peaceful world may depend upon rescinding corporate personhood, IMHO.

:kick::kick::kick:

[upi402]

12. Right. A corporation has no corpse. No realworld penalty.

This fiction has had its curtain pulled back, I think.

[bobbolink]

14. phenomenal guide! Mucho megalo mahalo!

:applause:

[glitch]

15. k. already r'd. nt

[mdmc]

16. If you take on the corporations, you need to take on those in power

All of those in power, imho...

[bobthedrummer]

17. kick

[cosmicdot]

18. Thom Hartmann: "A mistake?"

from a Thom Hartmann speech re "Unequal Protection"

Then I walked a few blocks to the office of an old friend of mine who is a lawyer in town, and laid the copies out on his desk. "I want to ask you about the 1886 Santa Clara County case," I told him, and he answered, "Oh, you mean the one where corporations become persons." Really, that is how lawyers inevitably respond. Then I asked him to take a look at the last paragraph of the case. He read it, and said, "That's interesting." But when I had him read the first sentence of the head notes, his response was "Holy Cow!" or actually, something a little stronger. "Clearly," he said, "the head notes don't say what the ruling says." "Which means . . . ?" I asked. "Which means there is a mistake," he answered.

"A mistake?" I said. "A hundred and twenty years of American law based on a mistake? The World Trade Organization is based on a mistake?" And he said, "Calm down, I'm not an expert on constitutional law. Why don't you call somebody who knows this stuff?" So I went home and called Deb Markowitz, who is the Secretary of State for Vermont - "Hello, I'd like to speak to Deb Markowitz." The answer was, "this is Deb." That is one of the advantages of living in a small state! I told her that I had a question about the 1886 Santa Clara County Case, and she replied, "Oh, the one where corporations became persons." I said, "Yes, that one," and asked her if she had read it. She said she hadn't, although she had studied the case in law school. So I read to her from the end of the case, where the court declines to rule on the constitutional issues, and her response was about the same as my friend's - she was shocked. And when I asked what it meant, she said it showed that the Court never said that corporations are persons, and never granted them constitutional rights.

http://www.bodhitree.com/lectures/hartmann2.html

knr

[CrispyQ]

19. Great thread!

I found out about corporate personhood from a short editorial in the local paper. I couldn't believe that I was interpreting what I was reading correctly, so I went online to investigate & was horrified to find out that the author was spot on.

Reclaim Democracy is a great site. I decreased my monthly DU contribution so I could send Reclaim some money too.

k&r

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

20. Great Post

Something worth bumping.

[DeeDeeNY]

22. A funny comment I heard sums this up very simply

Can a corporation get a colonoscopy? NO? Then it is NOT a person!