It is the legal idea that corporations are persons in some cases and not in others. For example They have the right to free speech, but cannot get married.
Why Does it Exist?
This idea exists to make certain things easier, such as paying taxes under one tax ID or prosecuting corporations for crimes. You can't prosecute something unless it's a person.
It also offers certain valuable protections, such as those mentioned in the 14h amendment, which basically states that every person shall have equal protection from the laws in America. This is not a bad thing and of course everyone should have equal protection. This is a defensive mechanism. Where I see the problem is when corporations try to use the same argument to go on the offensive and try to smear the line between metaphysical "persons" (corporations) and real persons.
If you want to read more on the 14th, check out Cornell Law school's information, here.
Should Corporations Be Allowed to Donate Unlimited Amounts of Money to Political Campaigns?
This is one clear example where I believe the concept of corporate personhood is taken too far. While it is useful in some cases, it is harmful in others. The influence of money in politics is understood by everyone. To allow such a disproportionate amount of money to come into the system from corporations is to invite unfair influence that decreases the voice of the real persons in America. While it may do this indirectly, there is no doubt that it does. Why would corporations spend such large amounts of money if it did not benefit their business? They're just in it to exercise their rights? Dubious.
But Really, Corporations Already Donated Huge Sums of Money Without This Court Decision.
It's true. There are ways both the extremely rich and metaphysical "persons" can put their money into the political game in unlimited amounts. It's not just about direction donations, but PACs, SuperPACs, and other political organizations that serve the will of corporations and the super rich. This is why I suggested in my last post to limit donations a person can make to federal elections across the board. It makes things more even.
Should We End Corporate Personhood?
I think not. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But it would be useful for those in our judicial branch to start laying down clear definitions that will protect the real people from the metaphysical ones.
My reference material is mainly from an interview that NPR did with Professor John Witt who teaches law at Yale. You can find it, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment