Corperations are people, my friend - Agree or Disagree?

[the_poochies]

Dennis S wrote:
"How else could we hold a corporation liable for its actions?"

When are we going to start throwing "people" in jail?

There's not room for them with all of the corporations in prison who own prisons already.

[Ted King]

Mr Downtown wrote:
I don't know how this concept has gotten so twisted in popular discussion. Corporations have always been legal "persons" in the sense that they can undertake actions, be held responsible for them, and have duties. And there's nothing new or novel about the First Amendment applying to them...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

A small snippet of Justice Stevens dissent in the Citizens United decision:

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. 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.

The issue isn't really whether or not corporations can be given some Constitutional protection as a legal entity "person", but whether or not their free speech rights should be of the same extent as those of actual living people.

[Mr Downtown]

Yes, I'm aware that the FEC regs struck down in Citizens United could have been cast as a sort of time-manner-place restriction. But that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

[Ted King]

Mr Downtown wrote:
Yes, I'm aware that the FEC regs struck down in Citizens United could have been cast as a sort of time-manner-place restriction. But that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

As a legal question as answered by the courts, that is correct. That is a question of fact - courts have ruled corporations enjoy some Constitutional rights to some degree. But whether or not it should be the case that they have any rights or to what degree they should have the same rights as a living person is a question of values and that question is still quite debatable.

What I should have said more explicitly in my post you were responding to is that the OP doesn't distinguish between corporate rights as a matter of legal record or, as a question of values, what rights, if any, corporations should have vis-a-vis actual people. I think it would be helpful to keep that in mind if the discussion proceeds.

[Mr Downtown]

It would also be helpful to keep in mind the actual wording of the First Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law, not people shall enjoy the right of. . . . It's a restriction on the power of Congress, not an individual right to be given to certain qualifying "persons."

[Ted King]

Mr Downtown wrote:
It would also be helpful to keep in mind the actual wording of the First Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law, not people shall enjoy the right of. . . . It's a restriction on the power of Congress, not an individual right to be given to certain qualifying "persons."

Do you know of an accessible compendium of just cases related to how courts have ruled with respect to applying Bill of Rights protections to corporations?

[max]

Mr Downtown wrote:
It would also be helpful to keep in mind the actual wording of the First Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law, not people shall enjoy the right of. . . . It's a restriction on the power of Congress, not an individual right to be given to certain qualifying "persons."

An excellent reminder...

[Mr Downtown]

Ted King wrote:
accessible compendium of just cases related to how courts have ruled with respect to applying Bill of Rights protections to corporations?

Well, I think the citations in the majority opinion of Citizens United would be a good start. And here's a law review article on the subject.

[Ted King]

Mr Downtown wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
accessible compendium of just cases related to how courts have ruled with respect to applying Bill of Rights protections to corporations?

Well, I think the citations in the majority opinion of Citizens United would be a good start. And here's a law review article on the subject.
Thanks. It's an interesting issue.

[Mr Downtown]

Yes, I didn't realize the First Amendment cases were so recent (see the law review text around note 272). I just assumed it would have been dealt with long ago, in the first few paragraphs of Near v. Minnesota or something.