|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Corporate Personhood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The main legal distinction between a partnership and a corporation is that partners are personally liable for partnership debts and obligations. Actually it is possible to form partnerships and include a liability shield. For example LLP's have a liability shield. Many law form a special type of business entity in which partners are shielded from liability from the malpractice of their peers, but by state law, no lawyer can be shielded from his own malpractice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
1) Since legal personhood - the notion that a corporation is a discreet legal entity that can own property and delegate agency - is the only reason a corporation can be sued in court This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why states could not enact legislation to allow a corporation to sued without granting the corporation personhood. In fact there is nothing special about the corporate form in this regard. LLCs, LLPs, and Corporations are all entities that are treated as persons under the law for some purposes (e.g. first amendment law, suing or being sued, holding real and intellectual property) but not for others. Generally speaking most laws that apply to persons do not automatically apply to business entities. Belaboring the obvious, business entities do not collect social security or unemployment. They cannot vote or get married. The basis for the legal fiction of giving a business entity personhood is that failing to do so infringes on the free speech or other rights of the business owner. We don't grant business entities rights so that we can sue them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm informing you that "corporate personhood" means the ability of a corporation to appear in court and be sued. They're inextricable because they're the same thing. You are misinforming me. The term corporate personhood refers to any of the rights normally granted to humans that are granted to corporations, including the right to hold property, enter into contracts, and appear in court (as defendant or plaintiff). You are using the term to apply specifically to the right to appear in court. I think the more expansive definition is the more common usage. See Corporate personhood - Wikipedia Historically, corporations were first allowed to appear in court and hold property. These things were essential in order for corporations to be able to exist and do business. It was only later that the fourteenth and other amendments were applied to corporations granting them additional rights. My point is that "personhood" of this type is a legal fiction that is not necessarily tied to any other of the rights that real humans have. We are not forced to grant corporations first amendment protections just because we allow the corporation to appear in court or to hold property.
Personhood itself is the legal fiction that allows Coca-Cola to designate a lawyer to appear in court on its behalf. Absent that fiction, you could no more sue Coca-Cola or Walmart than you can sue the Mafia. I think you are letting the tail wag the dog. More correctly, business entities have certain abilities/responsibilities granted to them that we collectively refer to as personhood. The difference may seem rather nitpicky, but if the discussion is whether it is inevitable that corporations must be allowed to have certain rights other than those that are absolutely required allow the corporation to conduct business, I think the difference is a nit that needs picking. Edited by NoNukes, : Reverse tail and dog. Sigh. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
what leads you to believe that those rights are implications of corporate personhood such that they can only be removed by removing legal personhood from all corporations? By all means, lets pick the nit. I don't believe corporations have any rights which can be removed only by removing legal personhood. I'd like to see the first amendment rights given to corporations weakened to the extent that limits on campaign financing such as those included in the laws invalidated by the Supreme Court last year would stand.
I'm informing you that those things aren't the implications of "corporate personhood", they're the substance of corporate personhood. Absent corporate personhood none of that is possible, because if something can own property, enter into contracts, delegate agency, and appear in court it's a legal person. The above is a mere tautology. Corporations have been right to hold property and enter into contracts, etc., and we call that state of the law legal personhood. You are using the term personhood as if it were a quality we granted to or recognized for business entities so that we could allow the entitites to have human like rights. That's simply not the case.
Why does it have to be? That's the part I guess I don't understand. I've not asserted that "corporate personhood" extends to corporations any of the rights of a natural person except those rights that natural persons have because they're also legal persons. What rights are there that real humans have only as legal persons? Not many in my estimation, and certainly none that anyone realistically talks about limiting for corporations.
All natural persons are legal persons. With the possible exception of the rights granted specifically to certain groups of people (e.g. women's suffrage and possibly the rights granted in amendments 13-15), it is impossible to parse out which rights humans have only as legal persons except on an adhoc basis; we can of course simply note those rights that non-persons are never given. But that said, corporations don't enjoy all of the protections in the Bill of Rights. Corporations do not enjoy the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self incrimination. I doubt that the second amendment applies to corporations although I haven't looked into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'd like to talk to someone who opposes corporate personhood. That was sort of the point of all this. There was an argument made that corporate personhood allows corporations to have a distorting effect on our politics; I'd like to examine that argument. I don't think very many people oppose corporate personhood in the way you want to discuss it even if the words they say or post seem to imply that position. What people oppose is granting corporations rights that are not essential to operating a corporation. For example, people who are opposed to the undue political influence of corporations, probably aren't opposed to corporations being parties to contracts or being parties in law suits. There are actually a few cases where corporations have been granted rights by statute than exceed those of natural persons. For example a copyright in a work for hire held a corporations has a longer duration that would the copyright in the same work held by an author who is a natural person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Removed a duplicate post
Edited by NoNukes, : Removed a duplicate post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That means that in the event of a huge liability situation, like say the Ford Pinto, virtually everyone injured will have no way to collect any damages. Not so fast. Even without corporate liability, if an employee makes a boo-boo in the course of his duties, other principles can be invoked to get at the company assets. For example, if the family breadwinner gets hit by a gasoline truck driven by an Exxon mobile employee, the principle of respndeat superior makes the employer vicariously liable for the driver's damages. The family gets full restitution from Exxon, who can in turn then seek compensation from the driver. Vicarious liability is difficult to apply in cases where the injured party must find the employee or employees responsible before suing. It's even possible that no employee can be found to have committed an act that would make him personally liable. In that case, without ability to sue the corporation, injured parties cannot be compensated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If he owns/is in charge of the company, then he holds full responsibility for anything his company (which includes his employees, not just his material property) does. If the ultimate liable person is the head boss, then you only get to the head boss' assets and not to the assets of the corporation. In the case of small, privately owned companies you might find that to be satisfactory, because you can get at the company assets. But what about cases where the company is public, the CEO owns only some shares in the company, and the injury is on the level of the Bhopal disaster. The CEO may have tens/hundreds of millions in assets, but the injuries may be valued in the tens of billions. I guess I'm arguing crashfrog's case. Why do you really want to remove the ability to sue Union Carbide (who ended up paying a trivial amount to the Bhopal gas victims)? Does doing so really addressing the particular problems that you are really concerned about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I consider ownership above management. The owners would be responsible by default. So for the huge, publicly owned company in my example, you would sue the shareholders, since they are the owners. But the shareholders aren't involved in the day to day operation of the company unless they also happen to be mangers/executives. I don't think your plan works. What is it about the current procedure of suing the corporation that you find objectionable? What is accomplished by making corporations unable to be sued?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I know that the common understanding of the ruling in Citizens United is that the SCOTUS found that corporations had a First Amendment right, but I'm increasingly thinking that isn't the case. The material you've quoted from Kennedy would seem to prove me right about that - he's referring to the fact that individuals don't lose their First Amendment rights to act as assemblies just because the kind of assembly they're in is called a "corporation." I take issue with your characterization. At the risk of being seen as cynical, the quote in question might well be an accurate summary of some of Kennedy's reasoning, but I don't believe his words can be taken at face value. When corporations use their general funds to participate in the political process, the individuals who actually own the company (perhaps through investments by whoever manages their retirement funds) are not consulted about whether they agree with such participation. Instead, a relatively small group of people, namely the managers of the company, get to decide that for the real owners. In other words, the effect of Citizens United is to preserve the free speech rights of the corporation and not the free speech rights of the owners whose opinions are given no weight. Further, the four dissenting Justices expressed themselves in this way:
quote: Here is some of that language that the dissenters point to from the majority as signalling that the actual issue is the corporation's free speech.
quote: While Kennedy might have said some words about protecting the right of associations of people, a strong argument, with which four Justices would agree, can be made that the decision actually recognizes and protects a first amendment right for a corporation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Well, I disagree. That's not how corporations work - they are, however diffusely, obligated to follow the wishes of the owners/stockholders. In fact there's legal penalties if they do not. You are mistaken. What I described is exactly how large, publicly owned corporations work. Publicly owned corporations are not obligated to even determine the wishes of stockholders about their day to day operations. The stockholders recourse is to get rid of leadership (most likely at the next corporate election) if they don't like the directors' decisions. As long as the actions are rational and do not harm the corporation, the stockholder's have no recourse to sue the CEO or any other director for actions taken. Did stockholder's get consulted when HP decided to get out of the tablet market by dumping their inventory of tablets at fire sale prices? Of course not! (Am I bitter because I did not get a cheap tablet? Yes!) Generally speaking, stockholders have no say in how a large corporation is run on a day to day basis. HP's CEO may well be looking for work soon if he isn't already, but almost certainly the shareholder's won't be able to sue him. If Corp Xdiddy wants to run a swift-boat campaign with corporate funds, they generally don't ask for shareholder permission. Can you cite law or statute that backs up your impression regarding those legal penalties for not obeying the shareholders?
Oh, I see. So it was actually Kennedy's secret plan to create a race of corpor-people That's not at all what I said. The paragraph in question isn't the sum total of everything that Kennedy said. Corporate people existed prior to the decision in Citizen's United. Citizen's United overturned a prior decision (Austin) which allowed limits on corporate speech that did not address the corporation's business operations. And even if the paragraph in question were the sum total of Kennedy's written opinion, I don't think it is insane or paranoid to ask whether the reasoning in any judge or Justice's opinion is adhoc rationalization. Cynical perhaps, but not insane. For example one might note that a number of Justices in Bush v. Gore used reasoning that while being sound jurisprudence, differed markedly from reasoning that the Justice favored in other cases. It is not insane to speculate that politics may have played a role in the decision. And in a 5-4 decision, which is what Citizen's United was, I think we can consider and even adopt the reasoning of the dissent without being considered clinical.
It's not personal, but I don't [trust you NoNukes]. That isn't a problem for me. You should never have to apologize for asking someone to pony up the proof. That should be how all debates progress here. I'm not enamored of being described as clinical, but I can live with it. Before I cite from the opinion, I want to point out that the point I discussed above, namely that corporations can operate politically without determining the wishes of the shareholder's is an important part of my argument. I've described how corporations actually work, and both the majority and the dissent acknowledge that in the opinion. The majority simply does not think that the compulsion on unwilling shareholders is a winning argument. From the majority opinion.
quote: From Wikipedia on Derivative Suits
quote: Additionally, other than a few mentions of associations of speakers, the opinions of the majority Justice is littered with statements about the First Amendment rights of corporations as speakers. I'll discuss Robert's concurring opinion a bit. Roberts:
quote: Roberts also cites First National Bank v Bellotti which unequivocably held that corporations do have First Amendment Rights using the following language.
quote: Nowhere in Bellotti can be found the theory that corporations have rights because they are associations of persons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'll be honest, NoNukes, I'm not seeing where in any of those cites there's support for the notion that the SCOTUS in Citizens United ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights on the basis of being legal persons Perhaps I was obscure about the reasoning. I'll outline my argument. 1. Corporations engage in speech that is not the speech of the shareholders. The shareholders are never consulted on what the corporation is going to do. 2. That speech is protected under the First Amendment despite the fact that it is not the speech of the owners. Because of the above, I suggest that best way to interpret the court decisions in Citizens United and in Belloti is that the court was protecting free speech for corporations without regard to whether the corporation was the speech of an association of owners. If you want instead to insist that the court was protecting free speech by management as the association of humans, I could not argue much with that, but in my mind that is equivalent to protection of the corporation. Using your definition that corporate personhood only includes things like forming contracts, appearing in court, and the like, the I would agree that corporate personhood was not the basis of the decisions. But I've already acknowledged that. I said that I don't believe that such rights can be or should be removed by removing corporate personhood as you define it. But I (and others) define personhood more broadly to include all ways in which corporations are treated under the law in the same way as are natural persons. I would say that when the Court decided the Fourteenth Amendment extended first amendment law to corporations, they expanded the definition of personhood. And even then it would not make sense to say that the first amendment applies to corporations because of their personhood. But it would not be inappropriate to claim that corporations were being treated too much like people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
From what you've shown they're quite obviously enjoying First Amendment rights not because of their "personhood", but because they're associations of people, and the speech of associations is protected by the First Amendment. I'm definitely not saying that the right is because the corporation is a person. But I'm saying that the first amendment rights are part of what I would call corporate personhood regardless of the rationale the Supreme Court uses or purports to use. You call the notion that the Supreme Court has granted a new right for corporations flawed, but I don't that you can point to any differences between such a right and the one you think the Supreme Court actually did affirm.
And perforce a corporation's speech has to represent the speech of one of those groups of people, otherwise exactly how is the corporation "speaking"? Employees don't speak for the corporation unless they are authorized to do so. I don't think this discussion is about some loose cannon mouthing off without authority. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
From what you've shown they're quite obviously enjoying First Amendment rights not because of their "personhood" There are no rights at all granted to coroprations because of personhood. Personhood is the state of having those rights. People can legitimately object to more aspects of corporate personhood. But the solution is not to take away personhood. It is a flawed approach to think that taking away the right for corporations to appear in court would allow removing corporations right to free speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And well they should, since a corporation has no Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988) Not only that, but the Supreme Court refused to allow Braswell to use his personal Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because the result would be to give the corporation the same protection.
quote: Notice the distinction between the way the Fifth Amendment right is treated vs. the First Amendment right. In the Fifth Amendment case, the Court weakens the individual's Fifth Amendment right in order to avoid extending a Fifth Amendment right to the corporation. In Citizens, if we use the association of persons rationale, we find that the Court refuses to limit the corporate right because it would infringe upon the right of an association of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But it undercuts the case that somehow corporations have conspired with the courts to usurp rights previously granted only to natural persons. Holy cow dude. Does anyone believe anything like that? Why can't I just believe that in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that the dissent had the better argument?
Then honestly, who cares about corporate personhood? Like I've asked before, what problem are we trying to solve, exactly, when we agitate against corporate personhood? Generally what they are complaining about is corporate lobbying of the legislative and executive branches and influencing elections by corporations. If you don't believe that corporations have undue access to government policy makers,then you won't really care about that stuff. And it isn't just a liberal thing. Many conservatives believe that corporations have undue influence of immigration policy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024