Controversies About "corporate Personhood" in The United States
| The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
Since the mid-19th century, corporate personhood has become increasingly controversial, as courts have extended other rights to the corporation beyond those necessary to ensure their liability for debts. Other commentators argue that corporate personhood is not a fiction anymore—it simply means that for some legal purposes, "person" has now a wider meaning than it has in non-legal uses. Some groups and individuals (including the Greens/Green Party USA) have objected to "corporate personhood."
In part as a matter of subsequent interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of "corporate personhood" don't necessarily want to eliminate legal entities, but do want to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment. Often, this is motivated by a desire to restrict the political speech and donations of corporations, lobby groups, lobbyists, and political parties. Social commentator Thom Hartmann is among those that share this view. Because legal persons have limited "free speech" rights, legislation meant to eliminate campaign contributions by legal persons (notably, corporations and labor unions) has been repeatedly struck down by various courts. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, deciding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by a 5-4 majority, removed restrictions on some types of corporate spending in support of (or in opposition to) specific candidates. This dramatically expanded the free speech rights of corporations.
Read more about this topic: Legal Personality
Famous quotes containing the words united states, corporate, personhood, united and/or states:
“... while one-half of the people of the United States are robbed of their inherent right of personal representation in this freest country on the face of the globe, it is idle for us to expect that the men who thus rob women will not rob each other as individuals, corporations and Government.”
—Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)
“Power, in Case’s world, meant corporate power. The zaibatsus, the multinationals ..., had ... attained a kind of immortality. You couldn’t kill a zaibatsu by assassinating a dozen key executives; there were others waiting to step up the ladder; assume the vacated position, access the vast banks of corporate memory.”
—William Gibson (b. 1948)
“Women do not have to sacrifice personhood if they are mothers. They do not have to sacrifice motherhood in order to be persons. Liberation was meant to expand women’s opportunities, not to limit them. The self-esteem that has been found in new pursuits can also be found in mothering.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“... when we shall have our amendment to the Constitution of the United States, everyone will think it was always so, just exactly as many young people believe that all the privileges, all the freedom, all the enjoyments which woman now possesses were always hers. They have no idea of how every single inch of ground that she stands upon to-day has been gained by the hard work of some little handful of women of the past.”
—Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)
“A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.”
—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)