Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unequal Protection: the Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights
Common Dreams News Center ^ | 12/26/02 | Richard W. Behan

Posted on 12/28/2002 12:18:33 PM PST by droberts

 
Common Dreams NewsCenter
Support Common Dreams
 
     
 Home | NewswireAbout Us | Donate | Sign-Up
   
 
   Featured Views  
 
 
 
Published on Thursday, December 26, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Sing, Dance, Rejoice—Corporate Personhood Is Doomed
A Review of Thom Hartmann's
Unequal Protection: the Rise of Corporate Dominance

and the Theft of Human Rights

by Richard W. Behan
 

Unequal Protection may prove to be the most significant book in the history of corporate personhood, a doctrine which dates to 1886. For 116 years, corporate personhood has been scrutinized and criticized, but never seriously threatened. Now Thom Hartmann has discovered a fatal legal flaw in its origin: corporate personhood is doomed.

What is “corporate personhood?” Suppose, to keep Wal-Mart at bay, your county commissioners enact an ordinance prohibiting Wal-Mart from doing business in your county. The subsequent (and immediate) lawsuit would be a slam-dunk for Wal-Mart’s lawyers, because this corporation enjoys—just as you and I do as living, breathing citizens—the Constitutional rights of “due process” and “equal protection.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law.

To their everlasting glory, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended, as Mr. Hartmann explains in rich and engaging detail. And for 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, various governmental entities led corporations around on leashes, like obedient puppies, canceling their charters promptly if they compromised the public good in any way. The leashes broke in 1886, the puppies got away, and the public good was increasingly compromised—until it was finally displaced altogether.

Today, the First Amendment protects the right of corporations-as-persons to finance political campaigns and to employ lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations. Democracy has been transformed into a crypto-plutocracy, and public policy is no longer crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead to maintain, protect, enhance or create opportunities for corporate profit.

One recent example took place after Mr. Hartmann’s book was written. Senators Patty Murray from Washington and Ted Stevens from Alaska inserted a last-minute provision in this year’s defense appropriation bill. It directed the Air Force to lease, for ten years, one hundred Boeing 767 airplanes, built and configured as passenger liners, to serve as aerial refueling tankers. Including the costs of removing the seats and installing the tanks, and then reversing the process ten years from now, the program will cost $17 billion. The Air Force never asked for these planes, and they weren’t in President Bush’s budget for the Defense Department. Political contributions from the Boeing company totaled $640,000 in the 2000 election cycle, including $20,230 for Senator Murray and $31,100 for Senator Stevens.

The chairman of the CSX Corporation, Mr. John Snow, has been nominated by President Bush to be the new Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Snow’s company, another legal person, exercised its Constitutional rights by contributing $5.9 million to various campaigns—three-quarters of it to Republicans—over seven election cycles. It was a wise investment. In 3 of the last 4 years, averaging $250 million in annual profits, CSX paid no federal income taxes at all. Instead, it received $164 million in tax rebates—money paid to the company by the Treasury Department.

No, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended democracy to be. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as Mr. Hartmann details, were seriously anxious about “moneyed corporations” and their potential interference in public affairs. The Bill of Rights these two men drafted contained the ten Constitutional amendments that survive, and two more that did not: one was to control corporate expansion and dominance. (The other was to prohibit a standing army.)

As the 19th century wore on American corporations entered lawsuit after lawsuit to achieve a strategic objective: corporate personhood. With that, they could break the leashes of social control and regulation. They could sue county commissioners. Or lease their unsold airliners to the Air Force. Or collect millions in tax rebates.

In his spellbinding Chapter 6—“The Deciding Moment”—Mr. Hartmann tells how corporate personhood was achieved.

Orthodoxy has it the Supreme Court decided in 1886, in a case called Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad, that corporations were indeed legal persons. I express that view myself, in a recent book. So do many others. So do many law schools. We are all wrong.

Mr. Hartmann undertook instead a conscientious search. He finally found the contemporary casebook, published in 1886, blew the dust away, and read Santa Clara County in the original, so to speak. Nowhere in the formal, written decision of the Court did he find corporate personhood mentioned. Not a word. The Supreme Court did NOT establish corporate personhood in Santa Clara County.

In the casebook “headnote,” however, Mr. Hartmann read this statement: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Here, anyway, corporate personhood was “provided”— in the headnote, instead of the formal written decision of the Supreme Court. But that’s not good enough.

What is a “headnote?” It is the summary description of a court decision, written into the casebook by the court reporter. It is similar to an editor’s “abstract” in a scientific journal. Because they are not products of the court itself, however, headnotes carry no legal weight; they can establish no precedent in law. Corporate personhood, Mr. Hartmann discovered, is simply and unequivocally illegitimate.

The court reporter for Santa Clara County was Mr. John Chandler Bancroft Davis, a graduate of Harvard Law School.

Mr. Hartman has in his personal library 12 books by Davis, mostly original editions. They display Davis’s close alliance with the railroad industry, and they support persuasively Mr. Hartmann’s argument that Davis injected the personhood statement deliberately, to achieve by deceit what corporations had so far failed to achieve in litigation.

If Davis knew his headnote was legally sterile, though, we can only speculate about his tactics. Perhaps he thought judges in the future would read his headnote as if it could serve as legal precedent, and would thereafter invoke corporate personhood in rendering court decisions. That would be grossly irregular, and it would place corporate personhood in stupendous legal jeopardy if it ever came to light. But something of that sort must have happened, because corporate personhood over time spread throughout the world of commerce—and politics.

Mr. Hartmann doesn’t fill in this blank, but his daylighting of the irregularity will be the eventual undoing of corporate personhood. Its alleged source in Santa Clara County is a myth, a lie, a fraud. Corporate personhood simply cannot now survive, after Mr. Hartmann’s book, a rigorous and sustained legal attack.

Sustained it will have to be, for years or decades or even longer: corporations will fight the attack bitterly, but we now know corporate personhood has utterly no basis in law.

This article is not copyrighted, so permission to reproduce it is unnecessary. Richard W. Behan’s current book is Plundered Promise: Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island Press, 2001). For a description of the book, a synopsis, and further information, go to http://www.rockisland.com/~rwbehan/. Mr. Behan is currently working on a more broadly rendered critique, Derelict Democracy: A Primer On the Corporate Seizure of America’s Agenda. He can be reached by email at rwbehan@rockisland.com. For more on Mr. Hartmann’s book, see http://unequalprotection.com .

###

 
   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
 
 
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
   Home | NewswireAbout Us | Donate | Sign-Up

© Copyrighted 1997-2002 www.commondreams.org



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 1886; corporate; corporation
The article is actually on commondreams.org, but FR does not allow commondreams.org articles for some reason (why not?). However, the commondreams.org article is just a review of a book which can be found on Amazon. For the commondreams article, you can go here

Would rather hear what people thought about the book as opposed to commondreams.org.

1 posted on 12/28/2002 12:18:33 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: droberts
Good post, is commondreams.org a socialist anti-corporation group?
2 posted on 12/28/2002 12:44:04 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
Why do you identify anti-corporatism with socialist? If we eliminated corporations, we could get back to the purest form of capitalism: individual initiative and responsibility. No more see-no-evil boards of directors, clever accountants, wily CEOS, and confused stockholders.

But it's a pipe dream, it will never happen....
3 posted on 12/28/2002 1:00:30 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: droberts
The fundamental idea behind corporations was the protection of the assets of wealthy individuals from responsibility for the corporation's actions. A corporation could lie, cheat, steal, and kill, while wealthy individuals lived, protected from having to bear the consequences of their money's actions. From such nefarious beginnings, corporations have grown into that great game of gambling, the stock exchanges, and along the way have developed into the dominant, if inorganic, lifeform in our civilization. Whether or not, humans are necessary to the long term life of corporations is an open question.
4 posted on 12/28/2002 1:02:19 PM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
Don't know, but even socialist web sites can make a valid point once in a while and I don't think there should be sweeping bans against any one site.
5 posted on 12/28/2002 1:04:19 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Droberts questioned why commondreams.org was not allowed on FR, I just thought that a Socialist agenda might have been a reason. I don't think we should eliminate corporations because there is not an alternative source of capital but Corporations should not be treated as the equal of a person in all legal proceedings.
6 posted on 12/28/2002 1:07:00 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
Could not the individual be a source of capital (of course you would not want to change this overnight)?
7 posted on 12/28/2002 1:10:13 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: droberts
I would agree even a stopped clock is right twice a day but there are web sites that have so much garbage and so little intelligent thought that Jim may feel an alternative site will cover all important stories.
8 posted on 12/28/2002 1:10:13 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: droberts
This article makes a very big claim. Are there any legal types out there who can look into this? Is this claim concerning Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad valid? If so, what are the ramifications, if any?
9 posted on 12/28/2002 1:13:21 PM PST by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
Why should we ban articles from leftist web sites? I thought we were here to debate ideas. I would prefer to see more serious intellectual engagement, and less name-calling.

If you read liberal rags like the Nation, the Utne Reader, and the New Republic, your thinking should be clarified.
10 posted on 12/28/2002 1:14:21 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
Probably does not matter, as it will be business as usual regardless of the validity of the 1886 decision. Rather like the Miller decision relating to the 2nd Amendment. If you read it, it implies we should all be allowed whatever weapons the military has, but are we?
11 posted on 12/28/2002 1:15:36 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: droberts
There are many privately held corporations where individuals and families provide funds but the Stock market seems to be a good way to evaluate and fund many business ideas.
12 posted on 12/28/2002 1:15:54 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: droberts
I'm not opposed to the undoing of corporate personhood. Corporations may be conducive to economic growth, but they're also conducive to a back-door style of socialism.
13 posted on 12/28/2002 1:19:20 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Obstinate Insomniac
The funds could be provided by simply selling something (not stock, but a product) and if it sells, grow based upon the success of those sales. The stock market seems to be perpetually rigged in favor of the insiders.
14 posted on 12/28/2002 1:19:34 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Of course, since socialism effectively eliminates the competition and locks in the winner in perpetuity.
15 posted on 12/28/2002 1:20:26 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: droberts
If Davis knew his headnote was legally sterile, though, we can only speculate about his tactics. Perhaps he thought judges in the future would read his headnote as if it could serve as legal precedent, and would thereafter invoke corporate personhood in rendering court decisions.

That's all a moot point now. A headnote will not change our current corporate legal standings.

There have other cases where corporate personhood has been established.

The cat is out of the bag so to speak, getting it back in won't happen.

Corporate corruption needs to be addressed legislatively rather than judiciously.

Nice HEAVY fines normally do the trick

16 posted on 12/28/2002 1:24:04 PM PST by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: droberts
"What is “corporate personhood?” Suppose, to keep Wal-Mart at bay, your county commissioners enact an ordinance prohibiting Wal-Mart from doing business in your county. The subsequent (and immediate) lawsuit would be a slam-dunk for Wal-Mart’s lawyers, because this corporation enjoys—just as you and I do as living, breathing citizens—the Constitutional rights of “due process” and “equal protection.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law."

Well that certainly helped "Big Tobacco" keep its first-amendment rights, didn't it? As in television commercials, billboards, Joe Camel, etc.

--Boris

17 posted on 12/28/2002 9:19:55 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson