Corporations Are Considered People

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

“A corporation is an artificial person separate and distinct from its owners.” Briefly explain this statement.

That stipulation opened the door for the recognition of corporations having personhood in matters of free speech (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). These events made the recognition of corporate freedom of religion inevitable, and it became reality with the Burwell decision when the majority

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor” (2). The majority supported their decision by stating that corporation donations to a candidate election is a method of free speech, which means it must be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, those disagreeing with this stance viewed corporations as businesses, rather than people, and believed that having no regulations and limits on contributions would cause the voices of individuals with average means to be drowned out by the money donated by major corporations. The protection given to corporations by the First Amendment basically meant that corporations were seen as people, rather than as businesses. Additionally, the majority also ruled that the disclosure requirements set by the McCain-Feingold Act were constitutional for the movie because there is “governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about election-related spending resources” (3). Despite all the changes made regarding financial contributions towards candidates, the ban on direct financial donations and aids to candidates from corporations was upheld by the Court.

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

Although the RFRA specifically uses the word "person," its effects may be extended to corporations like Hobby Lobby. The main purpose of the RFRA is to maintain religious neutrality throughout the United States government as was intended by the writers of the Constitution (Smolin). The United States Supreme Court has long held that corporations do indeed hold many constitutional rights which are possessed by legal persons (Hall and Means). For example, the court has ruled in the past that corporations obtain the rights which prevent illogical governmental searches and/or seizures. The government must also refrain from collecting the property of any corporation without compensation (Morgan). Since

According to Glasbeek (2002), “Section 15 of the Canada Business Corporations Act unequivocally states, “A corporation has the capacity and … the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person. ””(p. 9). Although a corporation is not a natural person,

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit group that sought to challenge Michael Moore’s movie Ferienheit 9/11 through section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. Citizens United called into question Moore’s movie citing the motive behind the film was to advocate the defeat of President Bush and that it was

As a general rule of thumb, shareholders of US corporations are not personally liable for the debts, taxes, obligations or actions of the corporation in which they are a member. This shield from personally liability is known as the corporate veil. The corporate veil, a cornerstone of American corporate law, derives from the fact that corporations in America are regarded as legal personalities, distinct and separate from their shareholders; a concept that gives a little context to the now infamous “Corporations are people!” “blunder” by former presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle. The corporate veil also protects parent companies from the debts, taxes, and obligations of subsidiaries. This protection is hailed

It is a figure of speech, which cannot alter the legal aspect of the facts.” Quoted with approval by Kitto J in Hobart Bridge Company Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1951) 82 CLR 372, 385. 5 Latham CJ, in The King v Portus; ex parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1949) 79 CLR 42, in the course of deciding that the employees of a company owned by the Federal Government were not employed by the Federal Government, stated (at 435) that: “The company…is a distinct person from its shareholders. The shareholders are not liable to creditors for the debts of the company. The shareholders do not own the property of the company…” Similarly, in KT & T Developments Pty Ltd v Tay (Unreported, Parker J, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 23 January 1995), Parker J remarked (at 7) that: “The selection of an incorporated entity as the vehicle for that endeavour brings with it the consequences of the vehicle. The most significant of those consequences…are that the company has a separate legal existence from its shareholders and that the ownership of shares in the company, while potentially valuable, does not give the shareholders any proprietary interest in the property of the company…” 6 See the empirical study of the frequency with which courts in the United States pierce the corporate veil: R Thompson, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study’ (1991) 76 Cornell Law Review

My second point as to why they should not be protected is because companies and corporation are not people. The definition of a corporation now is “a body formed and authorised by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession” (Merriam-Webster). Another main reason companies are allowed by law to call themselves and act as people is because of legal personality (which is “the quality or state of being a person” (Merriam-Webster) or corporate personhood. Even when you read these terms, though, “legal” and “corporate” are still in play. Before this case even happened “the moment the 14th amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for

while it's miles correct that corporations most frequently fall beneath the jurisdiction of the govt. branch of presidency within the U.S., their venture is formed inside the legal pointers of the legislative department of presidency. In phrases of straightforward clarification, the legislative department of presidency makes the laws, the govt department enforces the law, and also the arm settles disputes some the law, normally the lawfulness.

* Is it acceptable for corporations to use their considerable power tp shape government policy?