• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%

  • Total voters
    64

NoJingoLingo

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
325
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
 
I think one of the biggest mistakes we made as a society is to allow corporations to be a liability shield. The lack of accountability this causes allows a lot of atrocities to occur (PG&E, Dupont, Tobacco companies). For example if some corporation dumps toxic waste, then yes the owners of the corporation should be held responsible.

If we get rid of the liability shield, I think we will see a lot more responsible activity and we would probably have less of a need for organizations like OSHA since the owners would be directly liable and would want to cover their butts.

In terms of free speech and such. The owners already have free speech as citizens, why would they need free speech again as the guiding force in a corporation?
 
I believe corporations should have SOME (but not all) of the same rights as people. Basically I'm in favor of where the law stood until yesterday, when the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of precedent to give corporations all the rights of human beings. :2mad:
 
If we limit corporations, or remove this "personhood" title from them then its only fair that all organizations would be censored and not be given any standing with regards to political contributions. Just because you have an INC., LLC., SC after your organizations name doesn't mean other organizations should have an advantage in influencing elections through donations.
 
If we limit corporations, or remove this "personhood" title from them then its only fair that all organizations would be censored and not be given any standing with regards to political contributions. Just because you have an INC., LLC., SC after your organizations name doesn't mean other organizations should have an advantage in influencing elections through donations.

Actually the Supreme Court struck down those other restrictions as well. As of yesterday, labor unions and non-profits are basically human beings too. As I said in the other thread, I'm not generally a big fan of overly-restrictive limits on campaign finance, but I'm nevertheless horrified at the Supreme Court's recklessness in overturning 100 years of precedent on corporate personhood.
 
Last edited:
If we limit corporations, or remove this "personhood" title from them then its only fair that all organizations would be censored and not be given any standing with regards to political contributions. Just because you have an INC., LLC., SC after your organizations name doesn't mean other organizations should have an advantage in influencing elections through donations.

To be honest, I don't think any organization should speak politically in aggregate, unless that is their only function and they should be a special category with special rules with nonprofit donations only coming from human beings.

However, commercial speech should be much less regulated, along with other speech such a church talking about the virtues of Jesus Christ and things such as that.
 
Last edited:
Actually the Supreme Court struck down those other restrictions as well. As of yesterday, labor unions and non-profits are basically human beings too. As I said in the other thread, I'm not generally a big fan of overly-restrictive limits on campaign finance, but I'm nevertheless horrified at the Supreme Court's recklessness in overturning 100 years of precedent on corporate personhood.

As others have said in other threads, it was happening anyway. Its naive to think that corps/unions/non-profits weren't doing this to begin with. As far as I can see, it will at least make these things visible for all to see.
 
I am the head of a corporation (don't get too worked up, folks, it is VERY small), and I can state an emphatic NO to that. A corporation is not a person. A corporation is simply a legally defined business enterprise.

I consider this decision as nothing less than corruption rearing its ugly head at the highest levels. The judges that voted to repeal 100 years worth of good policy did not vote for America - -they voted for their party and for their social class. I consider this to be no less than one more nail in the coffin for Democracy.
 
Last edited:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

NOT

"We the entities of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Corporations exist at the will of the government and can be terminated by the government at will.

The PEOPLE employed by or financially entangled with a corporation have their own rights as PEOPLE and are not in need of additional rights through a corporation.

As I understand it and as wiki notes, there is a question on the validity of the 1886 case brief.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate]Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?

The First Amendment says nothing about protecting only persons. It merely says NO law restricting freedom of speech shall be passed.
 
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

NOT

"We the entities of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

NOT
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of people but not entities, or of the press..."

By the way, most media outlets aren't people - and most are corporations too. Do they have no right to freedom of the press?
 
The First Amendment says nothing about protecting only persons. It merely says NO law restricting freedom of speech shall be passed.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Who was the Constitution written for? To protect the rights of the PEOPLE from government?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I say if corporations are "people" and deserve the rights of "the people" then they should be subject to all of the same laws as well. If a corporation breaks a law, then that corporation should see jail time as well as financial penalties. The death penalty should be used as well; any company that kills a person or another entity should have the death penalty or life in prison available as a penalty. Who would you put in jail for life? All of the execs? Shareholders? Employees? or should the company be forced to close it's doors and cease functions until the term is complete?
 
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

NOT
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of people but not entities, or of the press..."

By the way, most media outlets aren't people - and most are corporations too. Do they have no right to freedom of the press?
Did you happen to notice that the Constitution specifically pointed out that the Press has this right? Hmm... nothing about corporations though. Actually it specifically mentions Religion, The People and the Press and nothing nor anyone else.

Normally you don't assume something includes everything simply because it doesn't specifically exclude them. Can we include vehicles too, I sit in one, just like I work in a company. How about animals too, they aren't excluded from the Constitution so I should be able to include them where ever I see fit?
 
Last edited:
No they are not a person. Yet they still should enjoy freedom of expression, I dont see why a small business has a right to put a Pro candidate sign in their window but Walmart cant run pro candidate advertisements.
 
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?

Corporate personhood was one of the dumbest things that could of been allowed to pass.

The owners of said corporations are free to express themselves in any way possible, why do corporations need to be treated as persons?

It makes no sense and has caused perverse incentives to develop of the years.
They exist as liability shields and allow "bigness" in firms.
 
I am the head of a corporation (don't get too worked up, folks, it is VERY small), and I can state an emphatic NO to that. A corporation is not a person. A corporation is simply a legally defined business enterprise.

You are the second Corp owner I know that believes that. My fellow reservist has a small business is stanchly against any business having the same rights as a business. He thought that many many many years ago a business license had to be re-applied for every few years and that if the business couldn't prove they provided a needed good or service they were denied a re-issue of their license. He is of the belief his business excists to provide for him and his wife/children and if his children want to take over some day great, if not thats fine too. the idea that a business can excist for 120 yrs is wrong to him.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Who was the Constitution written for? To protect the rights of the PEOPLE from government?

And it does a great job of that. But the First Amendment does more than that. It protects free speech. All free speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I say if corporations are "people" and deserve the rights of "the people" then they should be subject to all of the same laws as well. If a corporation breaks a law, then that corporation should see jail time as well as financial penalties. The death penalty should be used as well; any company that kills a person or another entity should have the death penalty or life in prison available as a penalty. Who would you put in jail for life? All of the execs? Shareholders? Employees? or should the company be forced to close it's doors and cease functions until the term is complete?

Corporations are subject to the laws too. Just because you can't treat them the same as persons sometimes doesn't mean they aren't. Of course, you can send corporate execs to jail when appropriate.
 
And it does a great job of that. But the First Amendment does more than that. It protects free speech. All free speech.



Corporations are subject to the laws too. Just because you can't treat them the same as persons sometimes doesn't mean they aren't. Of course, you can send corporate execs to jail when appropriate.

Corporations are not people, they do not do anything.
The people who own and run it do.

They should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else and should not be able to hide behind corporate personhood.
 
Did you happen to notice that the Constitution specifically pointed out that the Press has this right?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif
Yes, I did.

Is the press a person? Is a newspaper or TV station a person?

Normally you don't assume something includes everything simply because it doesn't specifically exclude them. Can we include vehicles too, I sit in one, just like I work in a company. How about animals too, they aren't excluded from the Constitution so I should be able to include them where ever I see fit?

Yes. Congress is also forbidden from passing laws restricting the free speech rights of trucks. If you ever need to protect that right, call the ACLU.
 
Corporations are not people, they do not do anything.
The people who own and run it do.

They should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else and should not be able to hide behind corporate personhood.

Exactly! And they should have the same legal rights too.
 
The people who own it should, corporations have no legal rights in my reality.

If they have no legal rights, they have no legal obligations so they can do whatever they want.

NOBODY would ever argue that corporations have no legal rights at all. That's ridiculous. They exist in order to have legal rights.

The law doesn't just go one way. It obligates, and also protects.
 
If they have no legal rights, they have no legal obligations so they can do whatever they want.

NOBODY would ever argue that corporations have no legal rights at all. That's ridiculous. They exist in order to have legal rights.

The law doesn't just go one way. It obligates, and also protects.

What is it protecting?

A corporation is just a group of people.
Groups don't have rights, individuals do.
 
What is it protecting?

A corporation is just a group of people.
Groups don't have rights, individuals do.

People don't give up their rights just because they form a group. Why would they not have the right speak AS a group?
 
People don't give up their rights just because they form a group. Why would they not have the right speak AS a group?

They have all the right to speak as individuals.
Being a group does not change this.

If they wish to speak as individuals in consensus, they are still individuals.
The main problem with corporate personhood is deferring liability to a non existent person.

The individuals who make bad decisions for their business should be personally liable.
 
Back
Top Bottom