Hello, you may now embed "gifv" simply by pasting the link (same as youtube). Enjoy!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofRegistered Userregular
The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.
This Supreme Court, the John Roberts court, seems to be having trouble with that. It has been on a campaign to increase corporations’ legal rights — based on the conviction of some conservative justices that businesses are, at least legally, not much different than people.
Now the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season. There is a real danger that the case will expand corporations’ rights in ways that would undermine the election system.
The legal doctrine underlying this debate is known as “corporate personhood.”
The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns — a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.
In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. “Few of us are only our economic interests,” she said. “We have beliefs. We have convictions.” Corporations, “engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damaging,” she said.
Chief Justice Roberts disagreed: “A large corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests.” Justice Antonin Scalia said most corporations are “indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.”
The Constitution mentions the rights of the people frequently but does not cite corporations. Indeed, many of the founders were skeptical of corporate influence.
John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as “an artificial being, invisible, intangible,” he wrote in 1819. “Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”
That does not mean that corporations should have no rights. It is in society’s interest that they are allowed to speak about their products and policies and that they are able to go to court when another company steals their patents. It makes sense that they can be sued, as a person would be, when they pollute or violate labor laws.
The law also gives corporations special legal status: limited liability, special rules for the accumulation of assets and the ability to live forever. These rules put corporations in a privileged position in producing profits and aggregating wealth. Their influence would be overwhelming with the full array of rights that people have.
One of the main areas where corporations’ rights have long been limited is politics. Polls suggest that Americans are worried about the influence that corporations already have with elected officials. The drive to give corporations more rights is coming from the court’s conservative bloc — a curious position given their often-proclaimed devotion to the text of the Constitution.
The founders of this nation knew just what they were doing when they drew a line between legally created economic entities and living, breathing human beings. The court should stick to that line.
The specific case in question is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this case, Citizens United is arguing that a corporation, as a legal person, is entitled to First Amendment freedom of political speech and can therefore devote unlimited resources to supporting a particular candidate or policy. Also consider a similar case that never made it to the Supreme Court, Nike v. Kasky, in which Nike was going to argue that its press releases and letters to editors denying the use of sweatshop labor were not commercial speech; corporations and businesspeople can be held legally liable for misleading statements in commercial speech, but private citizens enjoy First Amendment protections.
I am obviously against the expansion of corporate rights. Large-scale commerce is made possible by treating corporations as persons for certain legal purposes, of course, and in some cases the limited liability provided by corporate personhood is beneficial to all of society; for example, if the massive number of people who have been injured by exposure to toxic chemicals over the years had to sue individual executives, there wouldn't be enough money to pay everyone's damages. It is therefore right and proper that corporations can own property and be party to a law suit. But I fail to see any benefit to endowing them with rights beyond what is absolutely necessary to conduct business. A corporation is a person only as a form of legal shorthand; they do not really "exist" in the sense that a natural person does. Granting additional rights to a "corporation" is in reality granting extra rights to the people who run these corporations, a class of persons that is already doing just fine with the normal set of rights they had at birth (or naturalization, as the case may be). There is no social benefit to further empowering the class of people that already exerts overwhelming influence in the politics of the United States; meanwhile, there is a great deal of potential harm. If corporations are free to direct their vast resources to influence public debate (more than they already do, that is), I don't see how private citizens could meaningfully compete in the political arena.