Move to Amend: coalition to abolish corporate personhood

A new coalition called Move To Amend is working to abolish corporate personhood in the US; they're working at the local and state level to pass laws to undo the work of Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that equated money with speech.

Boulder is not alone in this fight, nor is it the first community to consider such a resolution. In April, voters in Madison and Dane County, WI overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also been introduced in the state legislatures of both Vermont and Washington...
Move to Amend is gaining momentum rapidly in communities throughout the country precisely because the problems of corporate power are most evident locally. Developers seeking special favors pour money into elections. Big polluters avoid investigations and litigation by hiding behind their illegitimate "rights." Bad employers lie to the public about unfair labor practices with no legal consequences. People see it every day. They get it and they're ready to fight back. Move to Amend is here to help them do that with a strategy for long-term success.

Movement to Abolish Corporate Personhood Gaining Traction (via Reddit)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: activism • corporatism

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

Anonymous

Holy Crap!
I never thought I would ever see so many corporatists here!
Amazing, just like flies to shit!
- Cowicide
  
  Holy Crap! I never thought I would ever see so many corporatists here! Amazing, just like flies to shit!
  
  Or more like shit collecting in a sewer.
dw_funk

This entire branch of legal theory really does need to be reexamined. Of course, the chance of this happening without a real guns’n'fightin’ revolution seems slim. And I have to say, the slippery slopers were awfully quick to jump on this thread, eh?
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  And I have to say, the slippery slopers were awfully quick to jump on this thread, eh?
  
  Somebody has to protect us from the zombie, terrorist, pedophile horde that lies in wait for the moment that we give corporations less power.
MisterDarcy

My understanding of a corporate “person” is to do simple things like enable an officer/employee of the corporation to sign a contract – to say hire a freelancer WordPress designer. Without the corporation being a “person”, every person in that corporation would have to sign the contract.

Also, I believe it means that if someone slips and falls at your business, and decides to sue – instead of every employee of the company potentially going to jail and/or paying a fine, the company as a whole would be punished (unless there is egregious error/malpractice by employees).

Or say, if your company goes bankrupt…the banks can’t knock on your door and the door of every employee to demand their money back. Since you personally didn’t owe them money, but rather the corporation did.
- Bodhipaksa
  
  None of the things you mention — the ability of an individual in a corporation signing a contract, or liability issues — has anything to do with corporate personhood.
Anonymous

Corporations exist for two reasons:
1) To hold property ($$$) forever. Immortality.
2) To insulate the humans that control the company from liability by being exempt from laws that humans are subject to.

That’s it. A shoe box to forever keep all your wealth where no one else can touch it, and an opportunity to be above / exempt from the law.
- AnthonyC
  
  Those aren’t the *only* effects of corporations. Limited liability gives you the freedom to try new things without as much fear of failure. If you start a business and it doesn’t work out, you lose only what you put into it- not your life savings, not your home, and so on.
  
  A long time ago, corporate charters weren’t permanent, they had to be renewed- and wouldn’t be if the corporation’s existence no longer served the public interest.
  
  It is indeed obscene that anyone can create an immortal entity with most of the right s and few of the responsibilities that natural persons have. If we want an amendment to fix it, maybe something along the lines of “All rights and duties of person under this constitution apply specifically to natural persons. Other legal persons may be created that have certain specific rights and responsibilities as defined by congress and the states through appropriate legislation, subject to the limits of their authority under this constitution.” IANAL, in case that wasn’t clear.
- Anonymous
  
  Actually, there are several types of corporations, and by far the most common (the “S” corp) does NOT allow one to indefinitely store up money … in fact, an S Corp needs to disburse ALL funds at the end of each year, either in wages to employees, dividends to shareholders, or expenses.
  
  The C Corp can indeed store up money from one year to the next, etc., but they pay a fairly stiff penalty for doing so, in the form of double-taxation. Granted, a lot of these are finding ways to not pay the first part of that double-taxation, but it’s there…
  
  Moving right along …
  
  I own a handful of corporate entities and derive a fair amount of “good” from the notions of corporate personhood and limited liability … but in the back of my head all of this reminds me of the prohibition in the “Dune” universe of machines taking precedence over human beings. Indeed, a corporation is a machine and should be nothing but subservient to human interests. The same holds true for other scourges in our modern world, like computer-based stock trading, etc. These are machines and they should be subservient to man.
Anonymous

Stripping corporate personhood is one of the fundamental things we can do to save the Republic. Corporations were originally single-purpose temporary institutions. If you needed to build a bridge you formed a corporation to build it, then dissolved it when the bridge was finished. At some point they became permanent institutions for the sole purpose of making money for investors. So after stripping such pathological organizations of their personhood, I would resolve to change them back to their original purpose. Standing corporations are as dangerous as standing armies to the Republic.
IamInnocent

For the many, many corporations which are not under the control of American citizens, doesn’t their new legal status gives a lot of say in American affairs to foreigners ?
Kayube

Couldn’t a lot of these issues be addressed in the writing of the amendment? It could easily give some rights specifically to corporations.
Anonymous

Someone above said “If corporations could be imprisoned and/or executed, their status as persons would be much less dangerous.”, and indeed that was once effectively the way things were. However corporations soon used their enormous powers to give themselves immortality and in some cases invincibility too.
Nonentity

As much as I dislike corporate personhood, I really don’t get a good feeling from these people. Between the use of “judicial activism” to mean “a legal ruling I don’t agree with”, and the focus on “abolishing” personhood in small areas, it really seems like the wrong way to do it.
noen

I assume that BoingBoing is an LLC corp. You really sure you want to be exposed? As a corporate entity BoingBoing enjoys many protections under the law. Better hope you don’t get what you’re wishing for.

Perhaps it would be better not to revoke corporate person hood but to amend the constitution to restrict corporate involvement in elections. Or to have publicly financed elections.
- emmdeeaych
  
  I do not see the advocacy in this reporting which you are reacting to.
  
  It’s an interesting idea, how about debating it rather than attacking the people who brought it up? Hmmm?
wphurley

Does Thom Hartman know about this group and action?
toyourmother

Cowicide, I hate to break it to you, but when you voted for Obama you voted for a president who starts illegal wars, supports and has his own secret interpretation of the patriot act, just loves torturing people at Gitmo, and… dare I say it, is a complete corporate shill just like every other president our two party system has ever produced. Oh, wait…**UPLOADING NEW CORPORATIST FIRMWARE** oh thats better.
- Cowicide
  
  Cowicide, I hate to break it to you, but when you voted for Obama
  
  Toyourmother, I hate to break it to you, but I didn’t vote for Obama.
  
  Are you ok, Toyourmother?
  
  O_o
  
  [Obama] … dare I say it, is a complete corporate shill just like every other president our two party system has ever produced.
  
  You make an excellent point and it’s all the more reason we need to abolish corporate personhood.
  
  Thanks for coming onboard!
  
  Thanks for joining our side!: Cow apologizes in advance for any cognitive dissonance this post may or may not have caused to any person (human)… or corporation (non-human) that has become self-aware.
insert

Ending corporate personhood doesn’t end the ability of people to associate with one another; it’s not the associative aspect of corporations that’s problematic, but the limited liability aspect.

If you and I want to get together to go into the widget manufacturing business, or into the newspaper business, or into the spend-money-to-keep-Sarah-Palin-out-of-the-White-House business, we could still do that as a partnership. However, there wouldn’t be a fictitious person doing it: it be just you and me. So, if we got sued, it’d be us whose assets are on the line.

Ending corporate personhood would allow associations of persons to really be just that: a group of persons who share the responsibility for what the group does, rather than a fake person whose profits accrue to shareholders but whose debts can be erased with a wave of a lawyers’ pen.
- MisterDarcy
  
  Insert,
  
  In a lawsuit happy United States, I think that would end must “association of people” businesses pretty quickly. Plus, you are risking a flight of assets out of the US. No person with substantial savings or assets would risk opening a business in the US, unless they can hide their money else where.
  
  And also, how would it work for an airline company that’s employing thousands of people? One lawsuit and every one of those employees would have to pay up? Would you risk creating a new invention or even starting a bakery shop – because if that insertAndriod phone catches on fire or someone gets sick from the bakery food, the whole business can go under via lawsuits?
  
  Think about the change of behavior: Everyone will be risk averse to the point of halting innovation.
  - insert
    
    1.) You can be an employee of a partnership without being a partner. So, no, the employees wouldn’t have to pay up…
    
    2.) People start businesses as single proprietorships and partnerships all the time. Unlimited liability isn’t stopping them…
    
    3.) Limited liability allows massive pollution and financial bullshit to occur without anyone paying the price! What’s the “right amount” of risk? I don’t know, but it seems a little silly to allow certain legal maneuvers make some people not responsible for their actions — that’s what limited liability is: owners of corporations aren’t responsible for those corporations’ actions.
  - Cowicide
    
    In a lawsuit happy United States
    
    This thread is a perfect example of how the corporatists and their media lackeys have influenced and indoctrinated many citizens into believing half-truths, spin and outright lies (FUD).
    
    I was reading through this thread and seeing this in action in what would otherwise appear to be well-reasoned responses; but these responses are (unknowingly) based upon said FUD.
    
    There are so many posts in this thread based upon such FUD, it’s a bit overwhelming. But, I figured I’d stop here and focus on your post since it starts with classic FUD and I doubt you or many other detractors in this thread have any idea that’s the case (or you wouldn’t be repeating this FUD, would you?).
    
    So this will be a great “case and point” example…
    
    By the way, my hope here isn’t to chastise you for this, because I certainly can see why so many people believe that their fellow citizens are “lawsuit happy” because that’s exactly what corporatists have tirelessly beat into the citizenry through media saturation.
    
    How many times has one read about the woman who sues a helpless McDonalds corporation because she’s too stupid to realize coffee is hot? I assume you know the story, because EVERYONE knows the story.
    
    This isn’t an accident that everyone know this story so well. The media lackeys focus like a laser upon these scarce lawsuits and sensationalize them and give the appearance that average Americans are “lawsuit happy” and are suing corporations at an enormous rate for ridiculous things.
    
    The effort has clearly worked. It’s now become “common knowledge” among a large majority of Americans to believe this falsehood. Don’t think so? You folks fell for it, didn’t you?
    
    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
    THE FACTS
    (Once your remove the corporatist FUD filters)
    
    The vast majority of lawsuits are brought by corporations, not individuals. Moreover, judges dismiss corporate lawsuits as frivolous 69% more often than the lawsuits brought by individuals.
    Contrary to popular belief instilled by corporatist media saturation, since 1975 the number of lawsuits has declined.
    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
    
    I don’t personally have time to go through each and every piece of FUD being disseminated in this thread unwittingly or otherwise through corporatists (and by proxy through you).
    But, I hope these FACTS alone will get some of you thinking a little more about where you are getting your information from and why you believe what you believe despite said facts.
    
    To unwittingly start off your entire post with a corporatist lieâ€¦ makes one wonder where else you haven’t applied your wits? It makes the rest of your argument fall apart when the very basis and foundation of your argument is based upon a lie perpetrated by corporatists.
    
    This post is dedicated to all you detractors in here that are posting corporatist FUD. THINK about where you are getting your information from and CROSS-CHECK your so-called FACTS.
    - Anonymous
      
      Contrary to popular belief instilled by corporatist media saturation, since 1975 the number of lawsuits has declined.
      
      Citation needed. Not for persuading me, but it sounds important enough that I’d like to be able to give people some hard facts, and statistics on the matter turn out to be annoyingly hard to find.
Rayonic

Free speech is free. But as soon as you pay money for it it’s no longer “free” and thus can be regulated by the government.

That’s the jist of this.

The fact that they want to use this regulatory principle against certain groups of people is a corollary.
Neural Kernel

I believe that Corporate personhood is a completely valid concept, the human analog of an ant colony or beehive being considered as an organism made up of organisms. Of course, I believe that any organization making a claim to personhood should also be subject to laws against slavery. The emergent behaviors of a large organization could be said to represent a form of intelligence that is different than that of its individual members (“dumb” ants, “smart” colony) but because of internal latency and a dramatically different type of existence I would propose that they be considered a something similar to a minor, with its “owners” taking the role of legal guardian along with all the responsibilities that entails.
bgspence

â€œCorporate personhoodâ€ is the best thing for us all. If corporations are persons, then they should be subject to the personal income tax. Yes, they should file a 1040 just like us all, at personal income tax rates. And that would imply an alternative minimum tax for corporations.

Please please please get corporations on our side fighting for loopholes for each and every person.
- flytch
  
  1040 for a corp? would never work the corporation does not make money… the share holders do… the employees do… but the corp does not… the corp would have more tax write offs then they would have income to pay taxes on and therefore also qualify for even more welfare then they are getting now!!!
- bibulb
  
  I’ve been very much on the side of “if you’re a ‘person’, you’d better damn well be ready for all of the rights and responsibilities as such – and limitations of same.”
  
  Merger between two people? We call that MARRIAGE, kids – what gender is your corp? ‘Cause we don’t have truck with two genderless entities getting married. That’s between a man and a woman.
  (Oh, so now you’re up for civil unions? I see.)
  
  More seriously, as a corporation you’ve just been found in a court of law to be responsible for someone’s death. Well, it was manslaughter and not murder, so you’re not getting the death penalty, but you’re in prison for the next two years. Hope you don’t mind the two year freeze on practicing business. (And if it was found that you DID manage to commit murder and were found guilty, have fun trying to deal with the state removing your corporate charter.)
  
  Hell, one day, a corporation should have to serve jury duty. One day of no profit, and they get paid eight bucks.
  
  …Or we could treat them as a “legal fiction that acts LIKE a person”, but capable of being restricted and regulated in ways that actual people can not.
flytch

love it… now we can get on with life!!!!
Daemon

In response to several people all at once:

Freedom of the Press – The company will stop being a person, but the reporters will, most likely, keep being people for the foreseeable future. No problem there.

Freedom of Speech – People who talk… still people.

Police searching w/o warrants – Again, employees/staff are people.

So, barring secondary legislation that removes personhood from some/all people…
teufelsdroch

Amendments require supermajorities, don’t they?

And, while I’m willing to believe Wisconsin, Berkeley, and Boulder do have democratic supermajorities–those places are a little different than the rest of the country.

What do the poll numbers on this look like? Not just ‘Boo corporate personhood’ but ‘I would favor amending the constitution’. Is this an issue independent voters can be roused out of their slumber to care about? Keep in mind–Obama is black, and I’m sure there will be other pseudo-issues competing for your time.
- Anonymous
  
  “What do the poll numbers on this look like? Not just ‘Boo corporate personhood’ but ‘I would favor amending the constitution’.”
  
  I would at least like the option of being able to voice my opinion with a vote.
- Cowicide
  
  Boo corporate personhood
  
  Sounds like a great t-shirt/bumper sticker
  
  Keep in mind–Obama is black
  
  Will do!
regularfry

I don’t think limited liability relies on corporate personhood. That’s a red herring.
Anonymous

Here is an Explanation of the origins of what we now call “Corporate Personhood”. Basically it’s a combination of an old British holdover idea of Corporations being artificial people, combined with an unintended interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Anonymous

Why are so many people so bent out of shape about “corporate personhood”? As others have pointed out, it was developed to address a few vexing problems. This ‘movement’ to dismantle it really addresses only one issue – the corrupting influence of money on our government – and reintroduces a host of other problems. The problem isn’t corporations, the problem is that people are greedy bastards.
Bodhipaksa

Thom Hartmann, in this lecture http://bodhitree.com/lectures/hartmann2.html points out that it was never actually decided by any court that corporations were persons, but that a clerk who was in the pockets of big business added that to the non-legally binding head notes to the case, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Skip to about half way down the article to get to the juicy bit.

Hartmann says: “Make no mistake: This was a theft, since the Supreme Court never actually ruled that corporations have the same rights as persons. No legislature has passed such a law, no governor or president has signed such a policy into law, and the public has never voted on such a law.”

150 years of law appear to have been based on what was, in the most charitable view, a clerical error.
bardfinn

A: The movement of money is a kind of speech, and a kind of speech that should be protected;
B: the legal fiction of the personhood of a corporation is a necessity;
C: Corporations are restrained by their charters;
D: Corporations that attempt to buy legislation should receive the equivalent discipline of a private citizen attempting to buy legislation – capture by the state of the direction, rehabilitation, and work product of the person for a particular period of time. Directors and/or officers of corporations whose charters do not allow them to speak on a given political matter or for whom a given political matter is not directly affecting shareholder equity (in the case of public corporations) are stripped of corporate protections and prosecuted as embezzlers.
E: Politicians are forbidden for life from holding gain or employ in any industry or commerce that they, as a politician, participated in any regulation, legislation, discussion, advocacy, etc. of. If any of their immediate blood family or their spouse’s immediate blood family is directly involved in any industry, commerce, etc. then the politician is immediately and irrevocably entered as “Not Voting” for the vote count and is removed from any and all committees on the conflict of interest. Politicians found guilty of holding a conflict of interest while in office will be removed and prosecuted. Financial vestment – even blind financial vestment – in a corporation which stands to gain financially from the outcome of legislation or executive decision will bar the person from office as a conflict of interest (talking about you, Dick “hyuk hyuk put my Halliburton holdings in a blind trust so I don’t have a conflict of interest because case law has never handled this before” Cheney). All financial holdings in an industry or commerce subject to oversight by the position sought must be immediately and irrevocably sold at Market price prior to announcing seeking office, and may be bought back at Market price following an unsuccessful bid.

In short, the definition of “conflict of interest” needs to be substantially revised, and applied to politicians. It is simply unacceptable to allow a revolving door or dumbwaiter or back door or any kind of entanglement between those who operate government and those who operate commerce. Military-industrial complex is a four-letter word, y’all.
emmdeeaych

I’ve thought on this a lot, and I think corporate personhood is actually somewhat fair, so long as the charter comes with an inescapable expiration date, say 25 years.

And so long as companies cannot own other companies, because that’s slavery, right?
smgrady

“In April, voters in Madison and Dane County, WI”

woot! That’s me! That feels good. It can be you too.

Also, Decius, are you trolling? I understand that the issue is complex, but the heart of it is a fundamental unfairness in the way corporations (specifically, their leaders) are given special protections. Some of your concerns seem reasonable, but shouldn’t this bigger issue be addressed?
rjh

Let’s see, no actual proposed wording, just a disagreement with the outcome. The words matter. Do you really want to silence human rights organizations? environmental organizations? etc.? These are all corporations.

For proper background reading, see http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

For an example of what’s wrong with this kind of proposal, consider the amicus from the ACLU. The ACLU has twice used the courts to stop attempts to silence its criticisms of Nixon and Reagan during their respective election campaigns. Despite their being a corporate organization, the ACLU speech was protected. They could see that if Citizen’s United could be silenced, so would the ACLU.

As they said:

That ban applies to both for-profit and non-profit corporations, like the ACLU. For that reason, the ACLU joined the challenge to BCRA in McConnell. As we noted at the time, Congress frequently votes on important bills affecting civil liberties in the period preceding an election.
JProffitt71

Insert, Jjsaul, thank you.
smgrady

So the major concern is the ‘more corporate responsibility’ being applied to 1st amendment issues with respect to journalist and the ACLU, etc? That’s a valid concern – so address it in the campaign finance element of the correction but reiterate the journalistic freedoms. no? I concede I am ignorantly simplifying the procedure for passing a law and its accompanying attention to details, but surely we can make this work for the power of good.
arbitraryaardvark

Citizens United http://supreme.justia.com/us/558/08-205/ was a case about whether a nonprofit could distribute a movie they made that was critical of Hillary Clinton. CU is the project of David Bossie, who has made a career of criticizing clinton. He’s the guy behind the rumor that Vince Forster was murdered. In the end, many of the rumors about the clintons turned out to be true, and president clinton was impeached, but acquitted.
The government took the position that it could ban books if they were by corporations and discussed politics.
I seen some polling that less people know about the case, the more they are against it. People who have only heard about it from their friends are strongly against it. People who have read about it in the new york times are against it, but not as strongly. People who have actually read the case are split about 50/50. People who read the briefs and lower court opinions or attended oral argument tend to be for it. I wrote to my congressman asking for a ticket so I could go see the oral argument, but he never answered. I am for the case, at least the ‘corporations can speak’ part. There’s some bad stuff later in the opinion prohibiting anonymous speech, that I’m against.
It is often corporations or other rich players who can afford to bring the cases that win important rights for the rest of us.
If, as I have, you’ve ever tried to get your case heard by the supreme court, it’s expensive and difficult. Citizens United was an important decision in the direction of free speech. Its enemies re being used as dupes by those who want censorship.
- grimc
  
  In the end, many of the rumors about the clintons turned out to be true
  
  No, in the end all the crazy wingnut fantasies about the Clintons turned out to be lies. What color is the sky on your planet?
Kimmo

<3 Cowicide
irksome

What rarely gets mentioned is that unions were included as “individuals”; thus the efforts in several states to destroy them. Without union spending on elections, the bulk of contributions will come from corporations.

The Citizens united decision is the one case where people’s misuse of the word “abortion” for “abhorrent” is perfectly justified.
Anonymous

Dear American shareholders and investors,

I am a biological human with a bank account and the ability to write my own name. If you lose your rights to free speech and commerce, I would be willing to lend you mine, for a nominal flat fee. I await your reply.

P.S. Thank you for allowing civilization to exist.
- Anonymous
  
  Dear Anon,
  
  I am a shareholder and an investor. I am also a biological human. I’ll sign for my own stuff, thanks. I appreciate the offer to give over your free speech rights to me in exchange for cash, but I’ll pass. I have some of my own already.
  
  Shareholders did not bring civilization into existence. Civilization existed for a couple thousand years before the invention of corporate shareholding.
  
  The lazy side of me appreciates the slave mentality in you that fuels my 401k. The civic side of me wishes you’d grow a pair.
YakHerder

Don’t get hung up on the word “personhood,” people! The obsession with the evils of corporate “personhood” is akin to that of right-wingers on Conservapedia who can’t distinguish “relativity” from “relativism.” A “person” at law is just a legally-recognized entity capable of incurring its own legal obligations. So yes, amend the Constitution to recognize that we have a political-party-oriented system (factionalism!) and reign in campaign spending and corporate influence in government. But don’t get hung up on the word “personhood!”
Kimmo

Hmm, should have previewed…

[less than]3 Cowicide
dcamsam

This movement is flaky. For example:

Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

I know they don’t mean the Civil Rights Act, but this covers that. How dare the federal government preempt segregation!

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, you know what it isn’t? A Constitutional Amendment. You know what it does? Protects our rights. (Or least it will until the Supreme Court decides to “protect our rights” by depriving the government of the power to enforce the Civil Rights Act, much as the racist Supreme Court of the early 1900s did).

Even in the absence of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution to protect the rights of corporations, the government is quite capable of enforcing laws that have the same effect. The difference is that those rights are determined by majority vote through a democratic process, may be modified through the same process, and not determined by judicial fiat and changed every generation or so, whenever a Supreme Court justice retires.

So the question isn’t whether a corporation should have rights – I’m sure it should – it’s whether those rights should be determined by Congress or by the Supreme Court. Seems to me that it should be the Congress.
CitizenWhy

How about this for a political horse trade?

1. Constitutional amendment on debt ceiling.

2. Constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood.

Oi vey!
Anonymous

I think Pomeroy summarized the original basis for the thinking that corporations are people pretty well:

â€œWhatever be the legal nature of a corporation as an artificial, metaphysical being,
separate and distinct from the individual members, and whatever distinctions the
common law makes, in carrying out the technical legal conception, between property
of the corporation and that of the individual members, still in applying the fun-
damental guaranties of the constitution, and in thus protecting rights of property,
these metaphysical and technical notions must give way to the reality. The truth
cannot be evaded that, for the purpose of protecting rights, the property of all
business and trading corporations IS the property of the individual corporators.
A State act depriving a business corporation of its property without due process
of law, does in fact deprive the individual corporators of their property. In this
sense, and within the scope of these grand safeguards of private rights, there is
no real distinction between artificial persons or corporations, and natural persons.â€œ
Anonymous

If corporations are the SAME AS PEOPLE, then they should be TAXED the same as PEOPLE, same rates, same rules, same exemptions.
Crispian

As a heartening number of people have pointed out, this is silly and dangerous.

As jjsaul pointed out (4th comment):
“The specific wording of the amendment…is not predicated on personhood”

And if we look at the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”

It is really quite basic. Any expression of speech by a corporation necessarily emanates from a person or group of persons. Whether that be Jon Stewart (and his writers), the Chamber of Commerce, or MoveOn. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

The breadth of our freedom of speech is unique even in the Western world. It should not be constitutionally abridged. Now if you want to say that money (donations) doesn’t equal speech, that is marginally better. Throughout history, reducing freedom has often been predicated on the best of intentions, targeted at only a particular pernicious class. It never works out for the best.
- Neon Tooth
  
  The breadth of our freedom of speech is unique even in the Western world
  
  As is the obscene level of corruption in our political system. How about that?
  
  Corporations aren’t humans. Screw the precious constitution if that’s how it’s going to be interpreted.
Anonymous

I am looking for a group that is fighting the issue in Citizens United: Corporate Donations To Political Campaigns. This petition goes way beyond that.

I suggest to amend the constitution to say: All money spent on political campaigning and lobbying (corporate or otherwise) above a certain amount ($2000.00) must be immediately (less than 24 hours) publicly reported, not tax deductible, and for corporations with over n share holders(n = 5 or 10 ) must be voted on by the shareholders before hand.

Violations of this constitutional provision shall be punishable as a felony, with a minimum of one year and up to a maximum of life in prison(lives are at stake in the political process)
Blue

Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. – Ambrose Bierce
OrcOnTheEndOfMyFork

Sure, pick on the minority.

Corporations are people too! Sure, they may have psychotic and sociopathic tendencies who would happily lay to ruin everyone and everything around them for a profit, but who are we to judge? Isn’t there a dark side to each and everyone of us? I say he who has not sinned, cast the first stone!

(Remarks: Not to be taken as a factual statement.)
toyourmother

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/19/the-joke-is-on-stephen-colbert
- Cowicide
  
  via your “Reason” link:
  
  How’s that for a punch line? Rich and successful television personality needs powerful corporate lawyers to convince the FEC to allow him to continue making fun of the Supreme Court. Hilarious.
  
  Um, bullshit. Nice false dilemma.
  
  By the way… Reason magazine? This is very TYPICAL of them… They “reason” things like being against the Koch brothers means you simply MUST be against each and every thing they support. Um, what about weighing the pros AND cons…. and see which OUTWEIGH each other?
  
  False dichotomy…. after false dichotomy… after false dichotomy….
  
  “Reason” magazine is for people who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to see through their false dichotomy bullshit. “Reason” magazine is corporatist drivel and proves it all the time through it’s inane, obtuse false dichotomies.
  
  But, one should except to see more and more of this kind of drivel as the move to amend gathers steam FOR the people and BY the people.
- JProffitt71
  
  I was considering the information and various implications in your linked article, then I saw an ad for Glenn Beck’s show, and that just ruined it.
  
  All I can say, is that people are going to abuse any power allotted to them until it is no longer worth it, that is what makes up capitalism. Right now corporations have the power to influence government, yet bypass the law without any consequence (since they are NOT a person therefore cannot be punished like a person).
  
  Perhaps if we want a better future for everyone (that deserves one), we should push for transparency. Then the only moral corporations have (the people behind them) would at least be bound by law. In that case, I support the hacktavist movement.
  - toyourmother
    
    I dont by your premise. If the gov’t stops regulating the piss out of free speech I think a lot of this corruption you speak of goes away. Its like blaming free market capitalism for the financial meltdown when our current system is constantly being pushed one way or the other by artificial means i.e. federal reserve, or a tax code that NO ONE honestly understands. BTW, Cowicide, I think ya misunderstood the article completely. It was just debunking all the bizarre conspiracies liberals came up with when they figured out the Kochs dont support unions. Honestly, they were worse then the truth movement…
    - Neon Tooth
      
      . It was just debunking all the bizarre conspiracies liberals came up with when they figured out the Kochs dont support unions. Honestly, they were worse then the truth movement…
      
      There is no secret conspiracy with the Koch’s massive support for right wing think tanks and causes from Reason Magazine to “Freedomworks”, to getting caught paying PR firms to vandalize wikipedia and most likely articles like this. It’s out there for anybody to see.
      
      Just as your very telling posting history on Boing Boing is as well.
    - Cowicide
      
      BTW, Cowicide, I think ya misunderstood the article completely. It was just debunking all the bizarre conspiracies liberals came up with when they figured out the Kochs dont support unions. Honestly, they were worse then the truth movement…
      
      I misunderstood the article completely? Here, I’ll quote parts of the actual “article” and respond to you:
      
      FTA:
      
      If you’re interested in complicating dumb media narratives and blowing the minds of some of your leftard friends
      
      The “reason” article starts off by assuming people on the left are “too leftarded” to research and know which entities the Koch brothers have given money to. Wrong. It was the so-called “liberal media” that exposed all their contributions first place (well over a year before this inane “reson” article came to be).
      
      It’s much more likely that the “leftards” (and everyone else who is much more well-read than conservatives) already knew where the Koch brothers gave their money to (including the arts). I was well aware that the Koch brothers gave money to the ballet, etc. long before this article was published (because unlike many conservative idiots, I tend to stay informed of both sides of issues).
      
      Do you comprehend what this means and how this applies to you? Hahaha… probably, not..
      
      FTA:
      
      Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite? We need the Patriot Act to allow government to go through our emails and tap our phones to catch people who smoke marijuana and put them in prison. Oh, it’s also good for terrorists.
      
      Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like:
      
      CATO Institute
      Reason Foundation
      cancer research
      ballet (because seriously: FUCK. THAT. SHIT.) …
      
      Um, maybe you should actually READ the articles, Toyourmother, before you say that other people need to read them?
      
      I only have to quote the damn thing to disprove you and show that my initial summarization of the idiotic article was full of false dichotomies.
      
      Maybe you just don’t know what a false dichotomy means?
      
      Sorry, that’s not my problem. Once again, just because the Koch brothers do some good that does mean that outweighs all the bad unless you’re an idiot who can’t research your way out of a wet paper bag.
      - Cowicide
        
        This part in my previous post above should have been in quotes:
        
        FTA:
        
        Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like: CATO Institute, Reason Foundation, cancer research, ballet (because seriously: FUCK. THAT. SHIT.) …
Antinous / Moderator

Compose yourselves, please.
catbeller

Read the Hartmann piece years ago. Just wanted to add some detail.

The trusts had been trying to establish corporate personhood since the early 1860s. They had brought cases to the Supreme Court for decades, and had failed to establish the concept through their rulings. For the Court’s part, they not only did not rule in their favor, but decisively denied personhood to non-people.

SCOTUS clerks are not filers; they actually write up the decisions, sometimes, and do all the ancillary work. In the case we’re talking about, a former railroad lobbyist was a clerk who wrote up the judge’s decision. He did not make an error. He purposefully inserted language establishing corporate personhood. He quietly changed the law as understood. Then pro-corporate judges and legions of corporate lawyers and their paid congressmen ran with the decision and established precedent so quickly in court cases that it was impossible to roll corporate personhood back. And the pro-trust newspapers backed them to the hilt.
- Anonymous
  
  The harping on about Davis’ “insertion” of language into the decision header, enshrining corporations as people is really incidental to the issue.
  
  The corporation as person goes back decades before the Santa Clara decision, and has it’s basis in a current misinterpretation of the way corporations were viewed back then; the ‘natural entity’ versus the ‘nexus of contracts’.
  
  We currently see a corporation as an aggregate of individuals, bound by contracts, and it’s those persons, not some ‘natural entity’ that is being protected by granting corporations (limited) constitutional protections.
  
  All this talk of dismantling it is short-sighted and totally ignorant of the history of the issue, and the implications for contemporary society.
yrarbil cilbup

Those wacky tin foil conspiracy nuts, known as Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, went to the trouble of specifically taking away corporate charters as part and parcel of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Something about the East India Tea company throwing their weight around a bit too much. Hack Lawyer for hire A Lincoln, snuck corporations back in while distracting everyone with the genocide of native americans and a little thing called the Civil War.
zyodei

No, we need to go one step further.

Quite simply, we should totally revoke the whole idea of ‘corporations.’

I strongly support property rights of private individuals, groups, and businesses.

But the flipside of property rights is accountability. If I harm you, if I pollute your property or air, if I commit fraud, if I commit any type of criminal conduct…I must be held PERSONALLY responsible.

A business is different from a corporation. A corporation is, in essence, an organization that separates the individuals who who operate under it’s umbrella from personal responsibility from their actions.

Conservatives, who loves to talk about ‘personal responsibility,’ ought to HATE corporations – bodies that protect their members from personal responsibility for their actions.

The whole idea of the corporation is a fraud. There is no such thing. There are only PEOPLE.

If we are to live under the rule of law, we must live in an environment where, if a crime is committed by a company, every individual member who can be shown to have made the choices or actions that led to that crime should be 100% personally criminally and civilly liable.

However, businesses should also be granted a great deal more freedom, as long as they do not violate the rights, land, or health of others.

This seems to me to be the compromise that both liberals and conservatives could agree on, that would make this country and world a much better place to be.
- Anonymous
  
  How is this any different from the way things work now?
- Cowicide
  
  Conservatives, who loves to talk about ‘personal responsibility,’ ought to HATE corporations – bodies that protect their members from personal responsibility for their actions.
  
  But, that would require that they don’t be hypocrites and actually embrace the values they preach to everyone else themselves.
  
  I’m afraid some of this bad behavior appears to be hard-wired into their brains.
mizerock

Corporations seem to have far more power and influence in the legislative process in the US than in other industrialized democracies. This concept (“corporate personhood”) seems to be to blame. Am I wrong on either of these assumptions? Arguments such as “The New York Times will disappear if this passes” don’t pass the smell test.
- Cowicide
  
  Arguments such as “The New York Times will disappear if this passes” don’t pass the smell test.
  
  Conservatives/Libertarians/Corporatists are really great at stoking irrational fear to get what they want. And what do they want? More corporate control. By the corporation, for the corporation.
JProffitt71

I second zyodei, his point resonates with what I was thinking and suggests a reasonable goal.
ultragreen

A corporation is an artificial entity that has been created by the government. Unlike a person, it has no natural nor inalienable rights. The existence of a corporation can only be justified if it serves the public interest, otherwise it should be abolished. Because a corporation is an artificial entity of the government, the government is free to create or change the rules that govern a corporation.

If corporate spending on public elections does not serve the public interest (it clearly does not), then the government should abolish the ability of corporations to do this by modifying the rules of corporate governance. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case was fundamentally wrong.

Corporations are not persons, they have no natural rights, they have no inalienable rights, nor is it mandatory that they should be allowed to exist. They are entirely subject to regulatory power of the government on behalf of the greater public interest. It is the obligation of the government and the people to determine the rules governing corporate existence.

The attempt to justify a preexisting “corporate personhood” would be entirely laughable, if it were not such a serious threat to the independence of democratic government and the sovereignty of the people.
- Cheaplazymom
  
  Thank you UltraGreen. I was starting to get a WTF headache.
billstewart

Citizens United was a good decision. If Michael Moore can make whiny liberal movies about how evil the Bush Gang is, then whiny Citizens United can make whiny right-wing movies about how Hillary Clinton is evil because she’s liberal and a woman!. If MSNBC can have Keith Olbermann making editorial comments about how Bush needs to obey the law, and how Candidate Obama was a great guy, then Fox News can have their folks raving about the bogus stuff they rave about.

And if US law can ban Citizens United from showing their movie, it can ban you.
- OrcOnTheEndOfMyFork
  
  Citizens United was a good decision. If Michael Moore can make whiny liberal movies about how evil the Bush Gang is, then whiny Citizens United can make whiny right-wing movies about how Hillary Clinton is evil because she’s liberal and a woman!
  
  The issue has gone way past who gets to show what movies.
  
  The issue has become the problem that corporations are considered people who have incredible amounts of cash, can use unlimited amounts of that cash to choose and corral your future leaders, and won’t do any jail time for anything they say or do (because… they’re not actually people).
- Cowicide
  
  And if US law can ban Citizens United from showing their movie, it can ban you.
  
  Jeez.. this is a classic example of someone who lacks extensive critical thinking skills. If you think a massive influx of corporate money is going to “free you” instead of enslave you then you have to ignore the blatantly fascist history of “corporations gone wild”.
  
  Thank God, the American people… Independents, Republicans and Democrats are overwhelmingly against you corporatist apologists and once we UNITE, we will conquer your ignorance and truly bring FREEDOM from corporate tyranny to all American people one step closer.
  
  You’re on the wrong side of history, my friend… and we’re gonna win.
  - Anonymous
    
    Oh yeah, I can come up with stupid poll results too:
    
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      Oh yeah, I can come up with stupid poll results too
      
      You didn’t scroll down, did you?
      
      61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.
      - Anonymous
        
        Uh huh.
        
        My point was that just because a bunch of people say something, doesn’t mean it’s true.
        
        Corporations, or unions for that matter, CANNOT DONATE MONEY TO CANDIDATES OR CAMPAIGNS. How many times does this need to be repeated before the legions of idiots will remember it?
        
        “The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit.” http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
    - Cowicide
      
      Oh yeah, I can come up with stupid poll results too
      
      I was going to jack-slap you with your own stupid poll, but I see that Antinous beat me to it.
      
      Anon, you should seriously read your own sources next time if you want to be taken seriously. But, then again… your heart is not really in this, is it? Why don’t you join us? It’ll lift your spirits and bring purpose (beyond the almighty buck) back into your life. You might even stop blindly attacking good people and start thinking/reading before you speak next time.
      - Anonymous
        
        Unfortunately, both you and Antinous completely missed the point of the article I posted.
        
        Poll results are MEANINGLESS when the people who are being polled – the majority of Americans – don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Most people STILL think that corporations can contribute to political campaigns and candidates!
        
        This mania to restrict the rights of individuals who have entered into legal binding contracts, voluntarily and for contributory purposes, is completely un-American, and the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United was absolutely the correct one.
      - Cowicide
        
        Poll results are MEANINGLESS when the people who are being polled – the majority of Americans – don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
        
        Right… right… poll results are MEANINGLESS when the people who are being polled (average Americans) disagree with you apparently.
        
        Most people STILL think that corporations can contribute to political campaigns and candidates!
        
        [citations needed]
        
        (Seriously, since it’s like the foundation of your argument here, you need to cough some up or look stupid.)
        
        This mania to restrict the rights of individuals who have entered into legal binding contracts, voluntarily and for contributory purposes, is completely un-American, and the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United was absolutely the correct one.
        
        You speak in lots of absolutes and it makes you sound more like you’re discussing your dogmatic beliefs than an actual discussion of the ramifications of the ruling in regards to the welfare of the American public at large.
        
        Speaking of absolutes… ever heard of the quote “absolute power corrupts absolutely”?
        
        The elephant in the room that you’re ignoring is that a massive influx of corporate money is NOT lending itself to a “free and informed” American public. Its ramifications have already proven the opposite in the short amount of time since the horrific ruling.
        
        This ruling will benefit the elite and the lackeys of the elite and no one else. You are are ignoring the history and ongoing struggles within this country due to too much corporate power over the voice and rights of the citizens.
        
        You may think the American public is “too stupid” to realize what they are saying. But it seems you are too stupid to get what they are saying. The American public is saying corporations have TOO MUCH POWER and ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
        
        You corporatist apologists are in deep shit, thank God.
      - Anonymous
        
        Cowicide, the fec.gov site spells out quite clearly, for anyone to read, what the limits on contributions are: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
        
        And for you to claim that “corporatist apologists are in deep shit” strains credulity, given the speed that the securities markets in the US made up the losses incurred in ’08.
        
        I understand that you’d like to believe that corporations are evil entities that are implementing some dastardly plan to imprison all middle and lower class Americans so that we will be forced to make gold-plated shoehorns for rich bastards, but corporations are just collections of people, who have come together for a common purpose, like Boingboing.net, or Apple, or your favorite restaurant. And I don’t think that those collections of people should have their collective voices silenced, which would have been the case had the SCOTUS ruled differently in Citizens United.
        
        If the SCOTUS had ruled against Citizens United, do you think sites like Media Matters, or groups like the ACLU would have benefited? No, they would have had far fewer avenues to speak their minds.
        
        Get off of your high horse, Cowicide. Nt vry grp f gys n sts s t t rp yr grndmthr.
      - Cowicide
        
        I understand that you’d like to believe that corporations are evil entities that are implementing some dastardly plan to imprison all middle and lower class Americans so that we will be forced to make gold-plated shoehorns for rich bastards
        
        If you were right, then you wouldn’t need to resort to straw man arguments, would you?
        
        And for you to claim that “corporatist apologists are in deep shit” strains credulity, given the speed that the securities markets in the US made up the losses incurred in ’08.
        
        Jesus, you’re the king of straw man arguments, aren’t you? You apparently have no idea what I was talking about you poor infant. Corporatists are in deep shit because the American public isn’t going to take it anymore and is tired of being swindled.
        
        If the SCOTUS had ruled against Citizens United, do you think sites like Media Matters, or groups like the ACLU would have benefited? No, they would have had far fewer avenues to speak their minds.
        
        So whomever has the most money wins? That’s what a better democracy looks like to you? Actually, that’s a silly question. I’m sure you think that’s fantastic. Thank God, the majority of Americans of all stripes know that’s aristocratic horseshit.
        
        Get off of your high horse, Cowicide. Nt vry grp f gys n sts s t t rp yr grndmthr.
        
        If you were right, then you wouldn’t need to resort to attacking my dead grandmother because you lack critical thinking skills, would you? You should just try and work on self-improvement and deal with the limited brain power God gave you instead of lashing out at others.
        
        Yeah, I don’t know what poor corporations will do once actual humans have a voice in regards to human development. It’s… such.. a… shame…
        
        C’mon, corporatist apologists… you can do better than this, can’t you? This guy is hurting your cause… but, then again none of your hearts and souls are really in this anyway. It’s just about your greed and lust for power and nothing more.
Cowicide

Some of you really need to educate yourselves on The Story of Citizens United v. FEC and what it means for our republic.
decius

Yay! Once we abolish corporate personhood, nasty, evil corporations like “The New York Times Company” will no longer be able to claim that fundamental constitutional rights, like “freedom of the press,” apply to them! Isn’t it amazing how complicated problems have such simple solutions.
- Hools Verne
  
  Freedom of the Press was guaranteed in the Bill of Rights long before the 14th Amendment was added and then later interpreted to view corporations as legal persons.
- emmdeeaych
  
  The freedom of the press does not apply to the company, it applies to the people who OWN the presses. But you know that,. you’re just dropping stinkers because you have no better arguments. Why do you fear such a change?
- Finnagain
  
  Moran or troll? So hard to tell these days.
  
  You do understand that corporate ‘personhood’ was a simple clerk’s mistake in the beginning, right?
- dave
  
  Freedom of the press never applied to journaliam; it has always been ‘the freedom to own a press, if you are wealthy enough’. This is why the press is predominantly ‘press releases’ and manipulated marketing.
- Anonymous
  
  Your comment shows a woeful lack of basic constitutional understanding. The New York Times isn’t free to speak the truth (as they see it) because of any freedom of speech, they are free because the first amendment guarantees “Freedom of the PRESS”
  
  One of the biggest “mistakes” in American History was granting Corporations the right of “Personhood”. The founding fathers NEVER intended the corporation to become what it is today, in fact they SPECIFICALLY tried to stop it before it started. Big Money has been slowly corrupting American Politics for at least 100 years, but was finally given immortality when the Supreme Court ruled in the 70′s that a Corporation had all the rights and privileges of a human being. Unfortunately any efforts at the local level to limit the power of the Corporation are doomed to failure until this crucial error is corrected AT THE FEDERAL level.
- Rizal
  
  Decius, you don’t make any sense. Freedom of the press, established by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, would apply regardless of the status of Citizens United.
- jjsaul
  
  While you are right that there certainly are complications to unwind, and course corrections will always be necessary, you chose the wrong example.
  
  The specific wording of the amendment as you cited it makes clear that it applies to press organizations, and is not predicated on personhood. Further, the first amendment held up just fine for a hundred years before corporate personhood was even a twinkle in a robber-baron’s eye, in the face of tremendous embarrassment of political powers by yellow-sheet publishers.
  - decius
    
    The fourth amendment makes specific reference to “persons.” Are you OK with the idea that the police can raid the offices of your local community non-profit organization without a warrant?
    - Anonymous
      
      A corporation is a SINGULAR entity legally, so “persons” does not apply.
    - zyodei
      
      That depends. Is that office staffed by ‘persons’? If so, they should still receive constitutional protections.
      
      A few commenters here seem to be alluding to a very specific case, a corporation that consists only of robots, automatons, cyborgs, and turing machines; and as such receives no constitutional protections.
      
      However, I think such organizations make up quite a small percentage of companies out there…
    - jjsaul
      
      No, I don’t think fictional personhood is the only legal theory on which to found restrictions on governmental overreach.
      
      Far more often the problem is the opposite. Corporate power usurps the instrumentality of State action for private gain.
      
      Indeed, it’s worth recalling on this holiday what the real “Tea Party” was about.
      
      The tea that was dumped was owned by a mercantile combine with quasi-governmental mandate, which had used that mandate to enforce taxes on competing products what were being smuggled without tax stamps by shipping interests owned by Sam Adams and John Hancock, among others.
      - decius
        
        Constitutional rights are the most important legal mechanism through which we restrict governmental overreach. Supporters of this amendment want to deny the protection of constitutional rights to a broad set of circumstances. In fact, the total breadth of this is not well understood by the people who are advocating it. Its an extremely dangerous idea that represents a radical overreaction to a specific, narrow question about campaign finance.
        
        Do I trust the legislature to come back through and pass a law requiring warrants to search corporate offices after this amendment is passed (and clean up every other unanticipated negative consequence of this broad rule)? Of course not. If I trusted the legislature to reasonably regulate law enforcement I wouldn’t need the bill of rights to protect me.
      - Finnagain
        
        “Its an extremely dangerous idea that represents a radical overreaction to a specific, narrow question about campaign finance.”
        
        Wow, just keep digging! You’re almost to the surface.
        
        The Citizens United decision is in my opinion the single worst abuse of power in the history of this country.
        
        I appreciate your “concern” though.
      - jjsaul
        
        “competing products that were being smuggled” of course.
        
        I should note for clarity that the East India tea wasn’t exempted from the tax, exactly. The tax they paid for import to the Americas was reimbursed to them by the crown. Sort of the difference between a loophole and a tax rebate. It remains corporate capture of tax resources for private economic benefit, and the use of State coercive force to shut down competition.
      - flytch
        
        and now wal-mart gets most of the sales taxes paid back in the form of tax brakes… more profit for them!!!
        History repeats its self…
    - curveclimber
      
      Of all the hills to make a stand on you pick probably the dumbest.
      
      So you’re pretty satisfied with the status quo, where corporations decide on their own governance (no regulations, no taxes) because they can use unlimited amounts of money to manipulate our elections?
      
      And we shouldn’t try and change things because it *might* cause problems. Do you own Chevron stock or something?!
      - decius
        
        “we shouldn’t try and change things because it *might* cause problems.”
        
        Yes, more or less, I don’t think you should amend the Constitution of the United States without carefully considering the full consequences of the change you are proposing, and particularly if it creates significant negative consequences for the fundamental rights that our Constitution protects.
        
        Thats not “dumb.” What is “dumb” is expecting the very legislatures you claim are bought and sold to protect your interests once you’ve voted to remove a large set of constraints on their power.
      - smgrady
        
        “Thats not “dumb.” What is “dumb” is expecting the very legislatures you claim are bought and sold to protect your interests once you’ve voted to remove a large set of constraints on their power. ”
        
        How is this a vote to _remove_ constraints? Am I missing something? This would (should) hold more actors responsible for their actions and provide more transparency. Public officials will have to account for their corporate ties (if the public cares (hopefully)), and corporate leadership would be more responsible for negligence. How are these trends bad in any way?
    - hapa
      
      “The fourth amendment makes specific reference to “persons.” Are you OK with the idea that the police can raid the offices of your local community non-profit organization without a warrant?”
      
      multiple choice: an office is LEAST like…
      
      1) a person
      2) a house
      3) a set of records
      4) a collection of stuff
      
      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
      - Anonymous
        
        Not sure if that would be the outcome however, right now, your employer can give the gov’t permission to raid your locker, desk etc… without your permission since you give up most of your constitutional rights when you take a job. The only people being protected by the 4th amendment in the context you’re referring to is the business and the people who make decisions for the business. IE, probably not 99% of the folks reading this.
- Anonymous
  
  Think for a moment Decius. Does the Corporation write and article or does a reporter write an article?
  
  The right of freedom of the press is not a right of the Corporation, it is a right of each citizen who writes for the press.
  
  Your thinking a step further to possible consequences is commendable, but you stopped thinking too early. Perhaps so have I. I will certainly give this further thought and perhaps come to different conclusions on the topic. I want to get past my ‘fixed ideas’, do you? I think you do. Take your thinking further a few steps. Thanks for getting me thinking along these lines.
- Brillobreaks
  
  The first amendment applied to the press, and your local non-profit was protected from warrantless searches before the Citizens United case. The fear that fixing that particular ruling would open the press and non-profits up to the things you’re mentioning is simply unwarranted.
  - Cowicide
    
    The first amendment applied to the press, and your local non-profit was protected from warrantless searches before the Citizens United case. The fear that fixing that particular ruling would open the press and non-profits up to the things you’re mentioning is simply unwarranted.
    
    Brillobreaks, you make a very reasoned argument there, but I fear people like decius have an aversion to reason and are hastily lapping up what the right-wing media is pumping into them via corporatists. decius wants to be “right” no matter the facts. It’s an emotional thing. The corporatist lackeys within right-wing radio, TV, papers, blogs, etc. are very good at developing emotional bonds with their listeners/readers. For their fans, to go against the FUD they spew is likened to an attack against their friend.
    
    It’s indoctrination through media saturation. Facts are an emotional enemy of the people even if the facts only show the truth about corporations and the corporate world we live in.
jahknow

Dear USA: This is an issue of the utmost importantance.

Happy Independence Day.
phisrow

Honestly, corporate personhood wouldn’t bother me nearly as much if it came with the same consequences that real personhood did…

If corporations could be imprisoned and/or executed, their status as persons would be much less dangerous.
- Anonymous
  
  That’s exactly the problem. All the rights and benefits of personhood, none of the responsibilities or consequences.
Hopeful_Greis

The number and ferocity of trolls responding to this topic exceeds anything I’ve seen on BoingBoing. Guys – you won ok? Chill out. Corporations own the political process almost completely and own 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. You’ve never had it sweeter, so why all the furor and freakout? Savor your victory, for Fox’s sake.

In any event, moves to establish state laws are pointless. The Supreme Court recently ruled against such an AZ law, making it clear that they will not tolerate political action which weakens their fiats.

If you want to decouple corporate personhood from the political process (I agree, eliminating corporations as they were viewed legally prior to Citizens United is insane), a full Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that can gainsay the Supreme Court. Any local law will simply get expedited to Mr. Roberts’ Neighborhood (kids, can you say “shill”? Sure you can) and axed.
- Cowicide
  
  The number and ferocity of trolls responding to this topic exceeds anything I’ve seen on BoingBoing.
  
  Believe me, they are just getting started. There are vast, networked organizations (media, thinktanks, younameit) dedicated to keeping the corporatist status quo in power and they are very capable of launching widespread, vociferous FUD attacks on every American citizen that moves.
  
  This American Revolution will garner historic corporatist trolling like the earth has never seen from paid lackeys all the down to the unwitting, hoodwinked pawns in this thread.
  
  The American people are in for the long haul and while we don’t have the money to match these corporatist foes, we have American spirit and truth on our side… and the truth shall set us all free.
  
  To the trolls? I say…
  
  Bring it on.
  
  We’ll slay you with the truth. God DAMN your false dichotomy bullshit.
sokun

I’m not.
Cowicide

Not that anyone is reading this thread anymore, but one last note:

I do realize that this is a complex issue with many facets and how intrinsically tied the Citizen’s United ruling is to this Move to Amend. And, that opens up another can or worms because free speech issues are being dragged into the forefront.

For instance, Lawrence Lessig (who I respect greatly) doesn’t have a problem (on the whole, at least) with the Citizen’s United ruling, he thinks we are getting distracted by a free speech issue and should all focus on the Fair Elections Now Act instead.

Here’s what I basically said on his YouTube page:

I agree with the Fair Elections Now Act, but what I don’t think you comprehend, Lawrence, is how incredibly more powerful the Citizen’s United ruling has made corporations NOW. When the Fair Elections Now Act gets squashed by the powers that be… (being much more powerful from the Citizen’s United ruling) — WHAT THEN?

You’re putting the cart before the horse, Lawrence. I desperately hope I’m proven wrong & the Fair Elections Now Act goes through (without being neutered)

That’s the thing. There are great ideas like the Fair Elections Now Act, but thinking that’ll go through without getting completely neutered in our current (post-Citizen’s United ruling) climate is very likely grasping at straws.

I just hope I’m wrong.
benher

They’ve pushed us all too far.

If they’re people, they can be murdered. Burn them all down.
cameronh1403

About time someone did this. A corporation is a collection of people and as such, shouldn’t have any ‘personal’ rights.
Anonymous

Move to Amend has been around for several months, but yes please sign up. When Citibank gets checked for a colonoscopy and Bank of America gets a mammogram then they can be a person.

Also please sign http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=c1fd7f9b-abd8-4e7a-a370-1867881259d8
betatron

Are there any corporately-structured entities formed by … dunno what to call it … plain old folks, operating for grassroots-level interests?

This sort of thing seems to reduce to “it’s too hard to compete with them” so let’s outlaw their ability to compete.

I get that GE, Cagrill, Big Oil General Dynamics et alia etc are really really really powerful. How is one going to outlaw their corporate speech without impairing my ability to come together with like minded individuals to advance my personal agenda?

How many of you have PETA or Green Peace or whatever stickers on your cube? How many of you have donated $$ agains Bachman or Palin? Etc. That’s, at some level, corporate speech.

So much for all that stuff i read about here every week, all that net-enabled crowd sourced twitterfied new media stuff. It’s clearly bullshit. That’s what this says This is really a cynical indictment of the inability of people to come together in their own interest. People are too stupid (or lazy) to organize on their own behalf, let’s make sure nobody else can either.

At first blush it sounds like a great idea, but … include me out. kthx.
- PapayaSF
  
  Are there any corporately-structured entities formed by … dunno what to call it … plain old folks, operating for grassroots-level interests?
  
  That’s what Citizens United was: a corporation formed to advocate a certain point of view before an election. I think it’s absurd to say that free speech applies to individuals, but as soon as they organize themselves into a legal group, the government can restrict their political speech.
  - Cowicide
    
    I think it’s absurd to say that free speech applies to individuals, but as soon as they organize themselves into a legal group, the government can restrict their political speech.
    
    You make it sound like the worst issue facing Americans today is the government restricting the voices of large groups of Americans. Oh, the poor corporations have no voice…
    
    The current reality is a very small number of people who own corporations are drowning out the voices of the many with MONEY. As a matter of fact, the Koch brothers even pressure their own workforce to parrot their own voice under threat of termination.
    
    Here, you must have missed this story, click here.
    
    Critical thinking skills… you need them.
JProffitt71

It is apparently true that corporations cannot contribute directly to campaigns or parties. I dug around a bit and found that the ruling holds that “corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited”.

I still hold that corporations should not be treated as “people”. On the concrete level, this legal buffer can be abused (and already is, read: http://www.wyomingcompany.com/wyoming-llc/ ), the people behind corporations NEED to be accountable for their actions.

On the abstract level, corporations are literally the manifestations of self-interest, they will abuse any system if it serves their interest. Therefore allowing them a larger legal grey area is logically detrimental to society.

Anyways, yeah, transparency, we need that in spades.