In the famous recent court decision of Citizens United vs FEC, the court ruled that corporations and other organizations have the same free speech rights as anyone else, and denying them the right to spend as much as they want in an election was denying that free speech right. They had to fall back on past decisions that corporations were "persons", since the free speech right is guaranteed to people.
But recently they also decided that evidently the corporate personhood only has certain rights -- not all the rights of a normal person. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had compiled certain information on AT&T while investigating its billing practices. This information was requested later from the government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). AT&T took the matter to court and won a lower court ruling to keep the information secret.
The lower court ruled the information couldn't be released because the FOIA stated that information that constituted "an unwarranted invasion of person privacy" would prevent that release, and the information represented an unwarranted invasion of AT&T's personal privacy. But that decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and surprisingly, the Supreme Court overturned it -- unanimously!
Speaking for the court Chief Justice Roberts said that the term "personal privacy" is generally understood to refer to "persons" and not to entities like corporations. He went on to say, "We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities."
I agree with this decision of the court, but I'm confused as to what personhood rights a corporation can be expected to have. Are they a person or not? And if they are, why are their rights restricted? This just points out the real need for a constitutional amendment -- an amendment that restricts the rights guaranteed to "persons" in the Constitution to real people, and not to corporations or any other artificial entity.
When our Founding Fathers passed the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution), they never intended it to be interpreted as giving corporations those rights -- only real flesh and blood people. It's time for that to be made clear again.
"This just points out the real need for a constitutional amendment -- an amendment that restricts the rights guaranteed to 'persons' in the Constitution to real people, and not to corporations or any other artificial entity."
ReplyDeleteBe careful what you wish for.
Let's say for example you want to sue one of those big corporations you're always complaining about. Without the so-called legal fiction of corporate personhood, you'd have to sue each and every stockholder, board member and officer and prove up their individual liability.
Or let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose your 401(k) or IRA is a mutual fund that includes stock in a company that someone else decides to sue. Do you want to get dragged into the lawsuit and risk losing your financial security for retirement by having to defend yourself personally?
As confusing and as messy as it sometimes is, corporate personhood is a necessary evil in today's world. The alternative would be worse for everyone (except the trial lawyers).
Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry on corporate personhood.
One last caveat: I'm not a lawyer, and this should in no way be construed as legal advice!
I don't buy your argument, CT. There's no reason a corporation can't be considered to be an entity, even for the purpose of suing them, without giving them the constitutional rights meant for real people.
ReplyDelete