Corporate Personhood: Let the Other Shoe Drop

[Are_grits_groceries]

From Daily Kos - Generation 1960's diary ::

It's widely accepted the Supreme Court will soon strike down the existing ban on certain forms of corporate-financed political advertising, agreeing with a challenge of these laws on "free speech" grounds, corporations becoming as-if persons in terms of speech.

What isn't accepted, at least in our corporate-owned media, is corporations can pick-and-choose when they are to be treated as-if persons and when not. This duality is my own biggest gripe about the US legal system.

Many of you are familiar with a recent case involving illegal downloads of songs via a file-sharing network, in which the RIAA, the musical industry's trade association, was awarded millions of dollars from a single end-use downloader, one notably not alleged to have redistributed the downloads. The EFF, the association dedicated to openness on the Internet, suggested this massive award would not stand up when the case makes its way to the Supreme Court. After all, the Supreme Court recently struck down a large punitive damage award against BMW in Alabama on the grounds it was excessive in terms of the actual damages in the case. By any arithmetic involved, the file sharing case was many multiples more excessive than BMW.

But, a further review of these cases suggests the current Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, may be able to let the file-sharing award stand despite its own precedent. The reason for this is simple: the damages in the file-sharing case were a criminal penalty, while the damages in the BMW case were a civil award.

This distinction underlies what I consider the biggest flaw in our legal system. Namely, when an individual damages a corporation, we have criminal laws whereby taxpayers finance a criminal justice system that finances the prosecution of these damage claims. When a corporation damages an individual, except in rare cases we require the damaged individual to self-finance a civil claim against the corporation.

Here's a case-in-point: When Disney failed to pay royalties on 'Winnie the Pooh', there were no criminal charges considered against Disney. Instead, the owners of the rights had to self-finance the "prosecution" of a deep-pocketed defendant in civil court. But, if you or I fail to pay royalities" on a Disney MP3, Disney can simply call the local prosecutor and have us arrested.

Another example is Microsoft, which can place a call and have you arrested for using unauthorized software but which is itself not criminally liable for wrongly disabling software you own.

If the corporate whores John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia want to consider corporations as persons, then the Democrats in Congress should make all of the officers of a corporation simultaneously criminally liable for frauds perpetrated by corporations. Of course, Roberts, Alito and Scalia would then turn on a dime, but at least the American people would see the issue laid bare before them.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/25/786280/-Corporate-Personhood:-Let-the-Other-Shoe-Drop

Never thought about this. I'm not surprised.

[Triana]

1. When it comes to corprats and media (owned by corprats) free speech ought to be limited

VERY limited.

[CanonRay]

2. If you can't hang it, it ain't a person

This is the biggest underlying problem in America today. It begets nearly everything else. I wish we could "send" corporations to prison for wrongdoing, meaning they could not do business for "25 to life".

[Vidar]

3. K&R

[wroberts189]

4. Excellent post ...knr

[ljm2002]

5. That is an excellent point...

...and it does seem like we can fight fire with fire, so to speak. That is, if corporations are to be treated as persons, then under the Equal Protection clause, we can demand they must suffer the same stringent laws or, conversely, we the people must benefit from the law's largesse to the same degree that they do. So, for example, the person who downloaded all that music could be brought to civil trial but could not be charged criminally; or conversely, when a corporation does harm to an individual, the officers of the corporation can be brought up on criminal charges.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Or if you like the real estate a company is built on, have it seized as

"eminent domain" for civic purposes. I expect Microsoft's HQ could be turned into a nice youth-club complex. (And I guess I'd have to learn to use other stuff!)

[anonymous171]

7. Love it. K&R

[Laelth]

8. Interesting argument. Recommended. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Fumesucker]

9. Yes.. K&R

[mdmc]

11. ..

[yurbud]

12. great post--can we render and waterboard corporate officers too?

[yurbud]

13. what's creepy is this double-standard is reinforced on cop shows like Law & Order

they will do episodes where it turned out some corporate wrong-doing led to one or more deaths, but when they get the CEO in the interrogation room, they always say, "We could prosecute you for manslaughter OR you could agree to pay for all the medical care for those you harmed (or something similar)," and the asshole suit never goes to prison.

If there is criminal wrong-doing, individuals shouldn't have to sue to get compensation--the courts should take it from those who harmed them as part of a criminal proceeding.

I also believe the reverse is true: if someone sues a corporation they should be allowed to settle with a non-disclosure agreement. When people do that, they deprive the rest of the public of the knowledge necessary for the most capitalistic of consumer protections--"caveat emptor."