Are Corporations People?

A voter recently said to Mitt Romney, "corporations are not people". Romney replied, " corporations are people, my friend". In this exchange, "my friend" possibly translates to, "you dumb bastard". Of course, Romney means corporations are "people" in a legal sense which is correct. But he failed to see the point of the voter's observation. This brief exchange between Romney and some hapless voter raises a question: Should a corporation be viewed as a "person" for any and all purposes? The answer, no matter what, raises other questions. For example, should corporations be required to pay an "income" tax? Should corporations be allowed to finance political campaigns? Should corporations be allowed to register and vote? Should a corporation be allowed to hold a political office? And, to include the original question, are corporations people?

 

They are no different an organization than a church group, a labor union, or a community activist PAC. If the Supreme Court in Citizens United had decided the other way, all political groups, PACs, etc.. even the good ones would have to be disbanded and that would be a gross violation of free speech and free association.

And yes.. I can incorporate myself under TheSiliconMagician, LLC if I wanted to so yes a corporation can be a person, or a group of people, but the effect is the same.

I have every right to band with the corporation I work for and promote it's political agenda and assist in that agenda if I agree with it and you shouldn't be able to stop me. My employer has a voice just the same as you do. If I'm a stockholder, is that not democracy only a privatized kind? Shouldn't that democracy have a voice to as a group?

The alternative is tyranny and suppression of free speech. Deal with it.

 

IMO, corporations are all the people who are involved in the transactions of the company. This would include: workers, customers and investors.

Should a corporation be taxed? No, it is just another hidden tax on the general public.

Should corporations be alowed to fund campaigns? Not in my opinion. It is one thing to allow groups to persued the general public through adds and rallies. It is another thing to allow them direct access to political leaders.

I think the american institution has been bastardized by group influence which has led to the demise of individualism.

 

Excellent post, SM. That's it exactly. Still remember the first time I told my mom I was voting Rep. She went into the std Dem comeback, "Republican??? You know they're for big business, don't you?"

At the time, I was working for American Airlines @ their new HDQ in DFW... so it was easy for me to say, "But mom! What benefits big business benefits US! Those trips to Hawaii we took? We couldn't have gotten there without the generous benefits voluntarily given by that big evil corporation!"

LOL, sometimes the child has to teach the parent. She never brought it up again.

 

The Democrats have sure done a class job of brainwashing their base. Even some very old people I talk to sometimes say, "But Republicans are for the rich. They don't care about the poor." Democrats will always have that advantage because Republicans aren't so willing to lie to people.

 

Yep.. corporations being able to use the corporate funds without limit, unaccountably, to promote the politician that will best suit the corporate CEO's narrow purposes isnt skewed at all... One or a few guys using the combined financial resources of thousands to promote the interests of a very few.

Plutocracy at its finest... Bleh.. I dont know why I worry so much about these things.. When the Jackboots start caving in heads.. I will be wearing Jackboots. At least I have a choice on what side of the boot I will be on.

 

They are like giant evil monsters that attack little people and obay only the commands of there demon masters(Allah apearantly)

Wow. "Future SS of America" club president right here. Like Lennin says, "to make an omlet you gotta brake a few eggs". Will the last capitalist you hang be the one that sold you the rope?

 

carrying our conversation to a different thread?

 

Just a tiny tid bit, the "Allah" thing. Did that offend you? I'm sorry(not really though) if I did.

 

Not offensive, just desultory. Gotta go to work.

 

BBB and sons roofing, out of Texas, with offices in two states not including Georgia where they were working after a storm, that is listed as having 2 employees at the BBB, must mainly be for the corporation, which is people.

The sole purpose of such small corporations, which sometimes have several in one family, like the one that landscapes has 2 employees, and the one that cleans gutters has 2 employees...is for the perks that the corp can write off. Well, the Mexican who could not Speaky the Engrish most likey was not listed, like the black guy got fired and replaced with another cannot Speaky the Engrish...four guys working, but since there is no workers' comp we know they do not have more than 3.

And yes all those people of the corporation pay income taxes, but each individual corporation they have only has 2 employees to keep from paying workers' comp...so the corporation should pay income taxes.

And let's not forget that when the corporation has a loss, the food almost spoils in the convenience store and they take it home to eat it, the kid gets a free college education paid for by the taxpayers and a nice truck to drive that is really owned by the corporation.

Obviously corporations should not be allowed to vote, because many of them for purposes of avoiding taxes are run by the same people.

 

how bout now?

Holy crap, "desultory", gotta look that 1 up.

Ya, I gotta watch football....

 

Let's explore "corporations are people". Corporations buy out other corporations; corporations grow and get larger or wither and die. Unless there is a welfare system for corporations, they are not afforded the same luxory real people are.

Of course, there is a welfare system for corporations and there was in 2008 when the SHTF. But in the literal sense, treating corporations as people is plain dumb, as the OP points out.

 

Pepsi/McDonald's 2012!!!

 

A corporation if is people must be taxed. Period. Hidden tax? LOL.

If corporations aren't taxed, then the owners never will pay taxes. Simply because all things will be in name of the corporation. The fiscal fraud would be nice.

No, corporations has not had special rights.

And the campaigns should be only funded by public money. No private inversors should be allowed, of any kind. The lobbies should be banned.

 

An excellent documentary on this subject is a film called The Corporation. Corporate personhood has been a disaster for the United States, corporations corrupts America's institutions and dominates policy.

 

That's simply not true. By siding in favour of corporations, the supreme court effectively decided in favour of big business. In Canada, corporate personhood is not recognized and elections are far more free and fair than in America.

 

Correct. What they forget is that both parties don't care about the poor.

 

Why? No person is being told what to say or not to say, or with whom they can associate.

You do have those rights -- and your corporation doesn't require legal status as a person for you to do that. The group does not require a voice for the individuals to have their voices.

I don't think it is. And, clearly, it's the current practice that is leading to tyranny and suppression of free speech -- all the individual voices are drowned out by the big, booming imaginary corporation voices.

 

Every individual in the corporation is a natural person under the constitution. The corporation itself is just a group of people, like gays are a group or a union is a group. The corporation is considered a artificial person and not a natural person. ironically, both sides of the issue believe in giving rights to artificial people or groups of people, picking and choosing who those people are and what they should get. Liberals want to give gays rights instead of viewing it as a right for each individual who wishes to marry the opposite sex. They also want to grant special rights to unions instead of granting rights to the individual workers. On the other side, conservatives and corporatists want corporations to have the rights only the individuals in the corporation should have. Should a union, ILGA, corporation get special votes? If they break a law, who do you throw in jail? etc...

In my opinion, artificial people should not have the same rights as natural people. It is also important to note that groups of people were never meant to be protected by the constitution when it was originally founded and only individuals were supposed to have those rights. In allowing the meaning to be changed we have allow groups of people to gain power over individuals and steal their freedom, and corrupt our government.

 

People who see 'corporations' as people, are indeed misled. I would agree that some 'functions' of corporations involve a number of people... they are not truly people (per se).

Corporations are more like tools or machines (more like 'robots') within groups of people. I think it is a terrible mistake to simply refer to them as people; that really doesn't make sense when carried to the extremes it has been of late.

 

I agree with you here overall.

 

The question is, can people continue to use the excuse that corporations deserve the privileges and rights of an individual, simply because they are made up of individuals, while at the same time telling us unions, who fit the exact same criteria, don't deserve to exist?