‘Corporations are people, my friend,” Mitt Romney declared in a testy back-and-forth with hecklers last summer in Iowa.
It was among the first of what appears to be a growing list of gaffes Democrats will use to hang around Romney’s neck in the less than certain but more than likely eventuality that he is the Republican nominee for president.
Advertisement
Much like his more recent statement about how he likes to “fire people,” the corporation remark has been taken grossly out of context. The “fire people” line simply referred to the fact that he likes to use his power as a consumer to deny his support to firms — specifically insurance companies — that don’t provide good service. Who doesn’t like doing that? Let me know who you are and I will gladly sell you a lifetime supply of unicorn repellent. No refunds, of course.
Meanwhile, his point about corporations being people was simply that raising taxes on corporations means raising taxes on people, because the corporations will pass the costs of those taxes on to consumers.
It didn’t matter. Romney has something of a gift for making his arguments sound worse than they are. A “corporate raider” — as unfair as that term may be — just shouldn’t be using the phrase “I like to fire people” in any context, never mind amid a really awful economy. I don’t care if the full sentence is “I like to fire people who hurt puppies,” you know which snippet the Democratic National Committee will use.
Similarly, Romney’s point about corporations was entirely valid, as some liberal writers, such as Jonathan Chait, have acknowledged. But particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010 — which opened the political process to more “corporate money” (loosely defined) — the Left has been on a tear about the evils of “corporate personhood.” It didn’t matter that Romney wasn’t addressing that topic. And if Romney is the nominee, it won’t matter that his views are entirely mainstream. Expect a very long debate over the question: Are corporations people?
Okay, corporations aren’t people in the whole carbon-based humanoid life-form sense. If they were, then Stephen Colbert would be right that Romney was a serial killer when he worked at Bain Capital.
All corporate personhood means is that corporations are legal entities that have certain rights or “standing” under the law. The law does this for several reasons, but first among them is the simple fact that people don’t lose their rights when they associate in groups, whether it’s a corporation, a labor union, a nonprofit organization, or even a newspaper.
As legal scholar Ilya Shapiro writes, “It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. . . . [R]ights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.”
It’s really that simple. When liberals insist that corporations aren’t really people-people, they do so on the false assumption that conservatives were running around like Charlton Heston in Soylent Green, shouting, “Corporations are people! They’re people!” Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent in the Citizen United ruling, writes “[C]orporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”
Agreed. But so what? The law doesn’t, in fact, treat corporations just like people. Corporations can’t vote or be drafted. And people can’t sell fractional shares of themselves. The war on corporate personhood is really nothing more than a novel ploy to regulate corporations more.
What I find most fascinating about the debate over corporate personhood is the fact that the people who defend corporate personhood don’t anthropomorphize big business nearly as much as those who oppose it. After all, if Justice Stevens is right about corporations not having beliefs, feelings, and desires, why do we hear so much about “corporate greed.” Non-human entities can’t be greedy, can they?
I've actually changed my mind on corporate personhood. I say, corporations aren't people and don't have any Constitutional rights.
Now that that's out of the way, I think it's time for Congress to start passing bills of attainder declaring every labor union in America to be against the public interest and seizing their assets. Let's start with SEIU.
(It just amazes me that so many people can be so strongly against something and retain such fundamental ignorance of what it means. The government asserted twice in oral arguments for _Citizens United_ that under existing law, they had authority to ban full-length political books, and yet 80% of Americans think the Court was _wrong_ to reverse that law. I fear for my country.)
The resentment against corporations is ridiculous for sure. But this sentiment has been fueled in the minds of the sheeple by decades of conspiracy movies, political scandal, and a few bad actors in the corporate world. Now with the economic chaos intentionally created by Barry's handlers, the already nervous populous is slowly turning its anger toward private enterprise. Stupidly, these imbeciles decrying private enterprise are too short-sighted to realize that in the end they are cutting themselves off from the very prosperity they seek.
However, while free-markets are great and so are good corporations....responsible conduct is also a necessity and responsibility of the company. It's just good management. So looking into Romney's past at Bain is not a bad idea.
Today's article in the DC is shocking....if true, of McCain's opposition research on Romney. It means Romney's has little concept for the term "good stewardship" beyond being able to spell it.
It's such a stupid attack on Romney. When halfwits bring it up in my presence, I challenge them, "So you don't think corporations are people; you don't think they should have to pay income taxes? You know the whole 'corporations aren't people' propaganda is being spread by Obama's Wall Street patrons who'd love to get corporations out of paying income taxes." And similar disingenuous arguments. Unfair and off-point? Yeah...but when fighting stupidity it's sometimes necessary to engage in some shortcuts.
I've tried that same point Jonah refers to - you have free speech, I have free speech; if we incorporate a business do we each somehow lose our free speech rights? - but appreciating it depends too much on having an IQ above room temperature. Anyone capable of understanding the takedown already did understand it without needing to have it spelled out.
The idiocy of this argument notwithstanding, Jonah is right that Romney has a very unfortunate way of expressing himself. And clearly the left is set up to run with the best/worst of Mitt. This morning I was in back of two SUVs with bumper stickers inspired by this: "Corporations are not People," and "Corporations are not The People." Never mind that that last is a very dishonest twisting of what Romney said. The whole argument is dishonest anyway.
We can't afford to continue doing damage control against Mitt's mouth - especially if Mitt is the nominee! Nominate Gingrich. Let Romney endorse him and then step to the side.
We had to do this for eight years with Bush, constantly live down what he was saying or trying to say or trying not to say but saying anyway. It's not just an unfortunate mode of presentation. A bad enough medium ruins the whole message, as 12 years of combined Bush incoherence shows. The Romneyites were right that Perry's verbal shortcomings made him an unfeasible candidate despite his far more impressive record. Now they need to take that lesson to heart when it comes to Romney himself, who often hurts himself and conservatism more when he does utter a complete sentence than Perry ever could have by being tongue-tied.
The narcissist from Freddie Mac is hardly a wise choice. And Mitt’s “gaffes” are not really “gaffes.” The liberal media has raised intellectual honesty to such an art form that the only candidate on the Republican side that could escape their mischief would be someone who is mute. Even then, the media would find a way to distort the sign language.
who often hurts himself and conservatism more when he does utter a complete sentence
If that's truly a concern, it's odd you would endorse Gingrich, who called Paul Ryan's plan "right wing social engineering," who said he was "prepared to take on the judiciary," and who cuddled with Nancy Pelosi on a couch to proclaim that "our country must take action to address climate change." Not to mention his insane attacks on Bain.
Romney may not be the most felicitous speaker, but I don't think we have to worrry that he will blurt out something excruciatingly wrong-headed.
This is a very opportune time to point out the logical fallacy that was the Occupy movement:
Individuals who excerised their right to assemble for the dissolution of the right to assemble of those idividuals who excerise that right in a different way.
Corporate personhood is an irrelevant side issue. The crux of Citizens United is its insistence that money equals speech.
It's always about the money, folks. Republican conservatism seeks to concentrate as much economic power as possible into as few hands as possible. Political power follows. The "job creators" [sic] and the GOP overlords are to run everything jointly (with a little help from the Supreme Court).
Sorry, no. You clearly never read Citizens United.
The advocacy group in Citizens United wasn't donating money to anyone. It made and distributed a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. The government wanted to ban the movie, and asserted in its argument that under the rubric of campaign finance reform, it had the authority to ban a book.
What I think you *mean* to say, is that the crux of the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo was that money equals speech.
Ignorance like this actually gives me hope: Since so much of liberal thinking is based on sloppily-understood facts, it's just a matter of educating them. It would be much harder if they actually had a firm, principled stand rooted in an *accurate* understanding of the facts.
"Republican conservatism seeks to concentrate as much economic power as possible into as few hands as possible. Political power follows."
Democrat liberalism seeks to concentrate as much political power as possible into as few hands as possible. Economic power, sadly, does not follow, because the economy rapidly collapses when managed by an imaginedly elite few.
"Republican conservatism seeks to concentrate as much economic power as possible into as few hands as possible. Political power follows."
That's why Obama and the Libs in congress rammed through legislation effectively nationalizing the decision making for 1/6 of our entire economy, right?
matsutov66 says: "Republican conservatism seeks to concentrate as much economic power as possible into as few hands as possible. Political power follows."
Not quite.
Democratic liberalism seeks to remove as much economic power as possible from as many hands as possible thereby creating a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts. Political power follows.
It's truthful, but inartful. It remains a forlorn dream to have a GOP nominee who can kick verbal liberal tail in a debate. Alas despite the blathering empty nothingness that is Obama, we will wait another 4 years at least.
And I still have no problem voting for Romney should he be the nominee. The alternative is a debacle.
And as to the Bain attacks; at least our putative nominee knows how businesses actually work.
Are corporations people? Of course not. They are legal "persons" in certain ways. Note that an unborn fetus, one week shy of full gestation, is widely considered to be people, but is not legally a person.
Ah, but should corporations be legal persons? I think not. The main problem is that unlike real people, corporations are potentially immortal. Corporations, unlike young adult males, are not obligated to register for the draft or involuntarily be sent overseas to die. Corporations cannot be summoned to jury duty.
If a corporation fails, such as by poor business operations, lawsuit, or legal impediment, then in most cases its constituent parts (the real people who formed the corporation) can re-form into a new corporation that is legally distinct in every way. Indeed, the new corporation can even have the same brand names, "sold" to it by the former corporation. However, real people cannot re-form from their constituent parts; the closest we can get, and that only in a limited economic sphere, is to declare bankruptcy. We cannot decide that we are so ill that we will re-assemble our cells.
These are not frivolous distinctions; they are among several reasons why corporations are not really people. Perhaps some limited fixes to the legal meaning of corporate personhood would be appropriate.
If you understand this: "Are corporations people? Of course not. They are legal "persons" in certain ways" then how can you conclude this: "Ah, but should corporations be legal persons? I think not." If you believe the former, then presumably you already understand the limitations on that corporate personhood that Jonah also summarizes. They are not and never have been treated as "people" in anything like the full meaning of that term, let alone as full citizens.
Their personhood is an artifact of law just as Jonah says it is, designed to protect the association rights, property rights and other rights of the shareholders, officers and even employees, and to permit the corporation to have taxation and other obligations to the government and courts as a corporate entity. The invention of the limited liability corporation was the chief if not the sole reason for the emergence of real modern economic activity of all kinds, since it permits larger and more complex holdings, accounts, and so forth, and does not actually mean shareholders have to be partners and lose everything they own down to their shirts in a crunch. And it is the sole reason the government can reap such windfall taxes on these activities. I for one would prefer not to go back to Elizabethan or earlier economic forms. I certainly hate to think that modern society is so corrupt that medievalism is the only possible solution. We managed to operate corporations for centuries well enough.
"The main problem is that unlike real people, corporations are potentially immortal." In theory, yes. Hardly ever happens. The oldest one I can think of is a rare bird indeed, the Hudson's Bay Company, incorporated 2nd May 1670 as all its logos proudly attest. Contemporaries like the East India Company lasted about 250 years before expiring. I can hardly think of any other than HBC that predate the 19th century and are still extant. Even the 19th century has left few survivors to the present. Most of the oldest operating today have barely reached or passed a century. And few even of them. Most corporations struggle to live as long as a long-lived human, and few are strong enough to outlast all but the most fantastically weak governments. And when you consider the enormous churning of the shareholders, officers, holdings, primary interests and what not of those corporations over time, few represent genuinely enduring blocs of interest or power.
Even a long-lived corporation is more akin to a family line than to one single-life individual. The arguments against them have some points of commonality with the arguments against inherited wealth and in favour of confiscatory death taxes. In common with Andrew Carnegie, you might agree with those arguments as well. I say they are justification for armed rebellion.
"Corporations, unlike young adult males, are not obligated to register for the draft or involuntarily be sent overseas to die."
Um, yeah. OK. I guess it is tendentious now to note that the founders of the draft, the French revolutionaries, considered it an aspect of liberty to be subject to the draft since the alternative was a regular standing army neither part of not directly subject to a free people. This idea was not entirely novel with them, and it had some [some] similarities with the American idea of a citizen soldier, and remained the paramount argument for many draftee armies into the 20th century. Standing regular armies were by comparison an affront to freedom. As a child of our time, I would consider conscription a terrifying if sometimes just demand of citizenship, but I would be remiss to forget it was once deemed a high privilege of freedom. Reserved for citizens over non citizens, and for individuals over corporations, on that basis. And, of course, in the latter case because corporations are amorphous. Their members can still be drafted serially as needed.
It would be interesting to see if any US government ever again would send draftees to fight overseas in anything but an enormous war of obvious national survival. at the time, people sometimes saw WW1 that way. Many saw WW2 that way. By comparison, Korea and Vietnam seem terrible anomalies, fought by conscript armies because that is what America still had in those times. Personally I consider that too to exceed the just demands of citizenship. I doubt it will happen again.
The armies that have been sent overseas since have not been draftees sent involuntarily. They have been regular troops sent to serve the country's interests, since ancient times the role of a regular army in every country, all of them have been volunteers who ought to have understood this simple fact. National Guard personnel are a bit different, but the total force policy however in error is an old one now and the conditions of Guard service pertaining to overseas service are available for those who consider serving.
Still, as I said, I see that conscription is an imposition, and a frightening societal demand for anyone. And corporations by their nature can't be subjected collectively.
Of course, corporations also don't vote or hold public office collectively.
"Corporations cannot be summoned to jury duty." Of course not. Do you want them to? Who will sit on their behalf? More to the point, jury duty while a pain is in the same category as voting and public office. A privilege of liberty that corporate persons do not enjoy. If anything, the failure to grant these rights to corporate persons better proves my points than yours- corporate persons already enjoy a very attenuated form of legal personhood, lacking both critical demands placed on individuals AND critical rights and privileges those individual persons enjoy. Seems like a sound balance to me.
Your third paragraph perplexes me. These are good things. As I said, they are the means by which economies grew beyond the 17th century. They allowed us to achieve much, and allowed people to pool resources in greater numbers and not to risk penury on a daily basis. All the operations you cite are subject to law and court approvals, and those laws have been refined to suit conditions many times and will be again. The gains have still vastly outweighed the losses.
Individuals have lesser legal scope to reorganize their finances [your cellular analogy is silly], although that is arguable considering just how much some get away with in bankruptcy proceedings. So what? They also have more direct control of their incomings and outgoings than any individual corporate shareholder can have over corporate ones, so shoulder a greater degree of individual responsibility where the corporate shareholder has limited liability. Any given shareholder might not have much direct responsibility for poor collective decisions. Any individual always has total responsibility for his poor decisions.
Or to just deal with your last, corporations are not treated like people now, and the legal meaning of corporate personhood already does not treat them like people. SO whether or not the rules of corporate governance need to be changed, and by how much, why does this stupid personhood angle keep coming up?
Alas, we live in an era of over-simplification and sound bites.
My point (if I had one) is that we must distinguish between "X HAS rights" and "X SHOULD have those rights." For example, I happen to think think that private land ownership is a creation of government, which can be taken away, rather than a natural right. Nevertheless, if I were a justice making a ruling, I would decide that various limitations on land usage (zoning, green space, etc.) are "takings" that must be compensated by due process. That is, private land ownership is a right that one HAS, but I do not think one SHOULD have it.
Follow
