# Corporate personhood **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176 "2012-10-18T23:05:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/1 "2012-10-18T23:05:29Z")
Hello again, I’m kind of confused on the whole issue of corporate personhood. First part of the question: Wasn’t corporate personhood, as a legal doctrine, well-established and long-standing by now? Is there a reason for the concept of corporate personhood receiving so much reporting aside from the perception that corporations have an undue influence on our society and politics, perhaps more so than before? Second question is more content-based, and it’s whether the “legal fiction” of corporate personhood, and corporate law in general, is rooted in US constitutional law (or contract law, etc. some existing body of law originating outside corporations themselves), or was rather, invented by the corporations themselves for their own purpose/benefit? Thanks. Regards, Jay ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/2 "2012-10-18T23:27:17Z")
Did you try [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)? The Supreme Court had an early decision in 1819, and two others in 1886 and 1888 that are interesting because they referenced the 14th Amendment. It is clearly rooted in Constitutional law, clearly goes back to virtually the very beginning of the US and was not just “invented” by corporations (which I don’t believe would even be possible). As for current media attention… The Citizens United case is obviously an important finding by the courts that makes this issue relevant. Other than that, I think attacking corporate personhood makes all kinds of ridiculous arguments seem less ridiculous because people don’t understand what corporate personhood means. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/3 "2012-10-18T23:38:02Z")
If corporations were legal persons, then terminating one would be murder. Since this is not the case, they are not legal persons. What they are is legal persons _for some purposes_ – that is they have some of the rights of legal persons. The Citizen’s United case was arguing about one of those rights. Arguing they did or didn’t have that specific right was not ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/4 "2012-10-19T00:03:46Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > Did you try [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)? > > The Supreme Court had an early decision in 1819, and two others in 1886 and 1888 that are interesting because they referenced the 14th Amendment. It is clearly rooted in Constitutional law, clearly goes back to virtually the very beginning of the US and was not just “invented” by corporations (which I don’t believe would even be possible). It goes back further than that. The idea of a corporate body (whether or not its a business) having a legal identity separate from that of its members was established in English common law before there was a United States. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/5 "2012-10-19T00:09:37Z")
To answer one part of your question more succinctly, it’s receiving a lot of attention these days because of two things (that I know of): 1. The [Citizens United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) case allowed for unlimited corporate spending on political advertising as long as they don’t (explicitly) coordinate their efforts with candidates or political parties. This overturned a previous prohibition on corporate/union money close in time to primaries, caucuses, and elections. As a result, SuperPACs sprung up and started investing heavily in political advertising. 2. I don’t know how much of an influence this has been, but a small nonprofit in Eureka, CA started a campaign to “[Move to Amend](https://movetoamend.org/affiliates-list)” the US Constitution to unprotect money from First Amendments rights. Though they call themselves “grassroots”, there is a concerted organizational effort backed by the non-profit to spread the Move to Amend the coalition across the country. IMO they simplified the issues a bit much, but at the very least raised awareness and got a bunch of [symbolic city council resolutions](https://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map) passed in support. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/6 "2012-10-19T00:40:52Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > If corporations were legal persons, then terminating one would be murder. Since this is not the case, they are not legal persons. … It is legal (and not murder) in some cases to kill natural persons, e.g., in capital punishment, in war, and as self defence. So this argument fails. Corporations are (by definition) legal persons, but they may have different rights from natural persons. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/7 "2012-10-19T04:17:06Z")
The Roman had institutions similar in some ways to companies. The common law (and also continental legal systems) has recognized companies as being legal persons in their own rights for at least the last few hundred years. What changed in the 19th century was the ability of private persons to incorporate a company without getting a charter or letters patent from a monarch. What separate legal personality does is give the company the right to sue, enter into contracts and generally conduct business separate from its shareholders. This has several advantages, chiefly that if the corporation fails and becomes bankrupt, all the shareholders risk losing is the amount of money they placed in the company, and only company owned property can be seized, the personal property of the shareholders remains safe, not the case with some other bodies such as sole propritierships and firms. So the most important reason is that corporate personhood permits the reduction of risk. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/8 "2012-10-19T17:03:55Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > If corporations were legal persons, then terminating one would be murder. Since this is not the case, they are not legal persons. What they are is legal persons _for some purposes_ – that is they have some of the rights of legal persons. The Citizen’s United case was arguing about one of those rights. Arguing they did or didn’t have that specific right was not ridiculous. Well… the ridiculous arguments I’m talking about usually start with the same first sentence of your post and then use that to support whatever position they like. They amount to arguments in the form of “A corporation isn’t a person for purpose X. Therefore, it is not a person for purpose Y and should be stopped.” As you correctly point out, the law has never said that corporations are persons in every respect and so we have to debate each purpose on its own merits. There’s no magical overturning of corporate personhood that will restore an idyllic, pre-corporate Eden. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/9 "2012-10-19T18:51:50Z")
Wild hijack for SF story outline I create a robot. The robot can pass or come close to passing the Turing test. A legal battle ensues on what rights it has. I form a corporation and somehow embody the corporation in the robot giving it at least some legal person rights. Then what? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/10 "2012-10-19T19:08:44Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > It goes back further than that. The idea of a corporate body (whether or not its a business) having a legal identity separate from that of its members was established in English common law before there was a United States. True, but it only applied to “corporate” bodies until recently. Partnerships and Trusts, for example, were not considered Legal Persons for **ANY** purpose until various statutes started declaring them as such. (E.g. the modern Internal Revenue Code says that “Person” includes partnerships and trusts, so these organizations are Legal Persons for purposes of Federal income tax law.) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/11 "2012-10-19T20:06:43Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > First part of the question: Wasn’t corporate personhood, as a legal doctrine, well-established and long-standing by now? Yes. And the people arguing against don’t have a clear idea what it means or what it does. > [@](#): > > Is there a reason for the concept of corporate personhood receiving so much reporting aside from the perception that corporations have an undue influence on our society and politics, perhaps more so than before? No, it’s probably perception. Silly perception, too. > [@](#): > > Second question is more content-based, and it’s whether the “legal fiction” of corporate personhood, and corporate law in general, is rooted in US constitutional law (or contract law, etc. some existing body of law originating outside corporations themselves), or was rather, invented by the corporations themselves for their own purpose/benefit? It was created alongside the idea of a corporation, even if it wasn’t clearly named as such at the time, centuries ago. It is not a new idea, and was developed before America even existed. In short, the laws creating corporations (they are always and everywhere creations of a specific state) define their rights, rules, and obligations. In America, the fact that “persons” are granted certain rights under the Constitution, and that corporations are defined as fictitious persons who exist for certain tax and legal purposes, means that Courts have recognized the corporate entity can and should have some of these rights, as well as obligations. The most significant are that corporations can engage in contracts, speech, and be taxed, and that people who lend to or invest in the coroporation are not responsible for acts the corporation does - though the corporation’s accounts are liable, and corporate officers may also be liable in certain criminal or civil cases. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/12 "2012-10-19T23:52:59Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Wild hijack for SF story outline > > I create a robot. The robot can pass or come close to passing the Turing test. A legal battle ensues on what rights it has. I form a corporation and somehow embody the corporation in the robot giving it at least some legal person rights. > > Then what? Then nothing. You owned the robot because you created it. You own the corporation because you created it. So now you own a corporation that owns a robot. It doesn’t change the robot’s status in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/13 "2012-10-20T04:22:16Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Wild hijack for SF story outline > > I create a robot. The robot can pass or come close to passing the Turing test. A legal battle ensues on what rights it has. I form a corporation and somehow embody the corporation in the robot giving it at least some legal person rights. > > Then what? Only legal persons can own property, such as shares in a corporation. There’s no way to give control of the corporation to the robot unless the robot already has legal personhood. As well, the whole point of corporate status is that the corporation is legally separate the shareholders. The shareholders don’t acquire any legal rights from the corporation. So even if the robot owns all the shares in the corporation, that doesn’t affect the robot’s legal personality in any way. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/14 "2012-10-20T05:03:19Z")
I probably shouldn’t have put my SF story idea post here. I wasn’t looking for factual answers, just interesting speculation. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/15 "2012-10-20T05:25:26Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > 1. The [Citizens United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) case allowed for unlimited corporate spending on political advertising as long as they don’t (explicitly) coordinate their efforts with candidates or political parties. This overturned a previous prohibition on corporate/union money close in time to primaries, caucuses, and elections. As a result, SuperPACs sprung up and started investing heavily in political advertising. Ok, but what does that have to do with “corporate personhood”? Where exactly in the Citizens United decision is the concept of “corporate personhood” mentioned as justification for it? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/16 "2012-10-20T05:45:19Z")
Corporations, like any collective group of people, have whatever rights groups normally have. You can’t murder the Democratic Party, but that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party doesn’t have all of the rights any other group of people have. Most notably 1st amendment rights, but also protections against unreasonable search and seizure, yada yada. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/17 "2012-10-20T06:08:39Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok, but what does that have to do with “corporate personhood”? Where exactly in the Citizens United decision is the concept of “corporate personhood” mentioned as justification for it? That’s why it’s an oversimplification. The thinking goes: Money in politics is free speech, free speech is granted to people, corporations have certain peoplehood rights, thus corporations are “people” and have protected free speech and can spend money in politics. That gets corrupted down to “Corps ain’t peeps” because the long version is presumably not as catchy. They argue that removing First Amendment protections from corporations (any _group_ of people, really) is the first step towards being able to regulate political advertising, because as long as corporations enjoy that protection, Congress cannot regulate it. The idea is that you would strip them of First Amendment rights, selectively grant other personhood rights back to them, but not unlimited free speech and spending. How is a corporation (or for that matter, a non-profit) spending 1 billion dollars in political advertising different from an individual spending the same, you might ask… well, corporations typically aggregate the money of the many into the control of the few (board members, CEOs, whatever) and allow the few to amplify their personal viewpoints far beyond what most individuals can do, using other people’s resources. Of course in a perfect world people simply wouldn’t support corporations whose ideals they don’t believe in and this would never be an issue, but I suppose this was meant to be a band-aid fix in a world full of ignorant consumers. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/18 "2012-10-20T06:32:57Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > That’s why it’s an oversimplification. > > The thinking goes: Money in politics is free speech, free speech is granted to people, corporations have certain peoplehood rights, thus corporations are “people” and have protected free speech and can spend money in politics. I know, but the premise here is wrong. Free speech is not “granted to people”. That’s not what the 1st amendment says. The 1st amendment says “freedom of speech” without specifying or qualifying where the speech originates. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/19 "2012-10-20T06:56:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know, but the premise here is wrong. Free speech is not “granted to people”. That’s not what the 1st amendment says. The 1st amendment says “freedom of speech” without specifying or qualifying where the speech originates. I’m not sure where you’re going with that argument, so I’m going to offer several responses: 1. A body of law meant to govern people written by “We the People” yadda yadda can, I think, be reasonably inferred to apply to people. One of the dissenting justices in Citizen United [wrote](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) (pdf page 163): > [@](#): > > It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established. 1. You can disagree with him and believe that Free Speech applies to more than just people… but then do you include animals? Electronics? If free speech is a right inherent to everything in the world and government cannot regulate it, you run into the problem of trying to define “speech” and identify categories of objects and/or organizations beyond homo sapiens that are capable of speech. Moreover, this would make freedom of the press redundant because they would presumably already be capable of speech. 2. Even ignoring all of the above, the Move to Campaign aims to clarify exactly the uncertainty you’re arguing on behalf of. Their basic proposal: > [@](#): > > “We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.” You can see the full text of the proposed amendment [here](https://movetoamend.org/democracy-amendments); it boils down to “However it was written and interpreted before, we want to change it to make it clear that constitutional rights apply to natural persons only, not artificial groupings thereof.” Nonetheless, this still doesn’t excuse the movement’s broader oversimplification of what is essentially a campaign finance issue into a “corps ain’t peeps” slogan that distorts the actual issue for the layman and makes meaningful discussion more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176/20 "2012-10-20T07:05:29Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I’m not sure where you’re going with that argument, so I’m going to offer several responses: > > 1. A body of law meant to govern people written by “We the People” yadda yadda can, I think, be reasonably inferred to apply to people. One of the dissenting justices in Citizen United [wrote](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) (pdf page 163): That’s a **dissenting** opinion. > [@](#): > > 1. You can disagree with him and believe that Free Speech applies to more than just people… but then do you include animals? Electronics? If free speech is a right inherent to everything in the world and government cannot regulate it, you run into the problem of trying to define “speech” and identify categories of objects beyond homo sapiens that are capable of speech. Again, it doesn’t matter where “speech” originates, from an animal (parrots?), from electronics (recording/speakers/AI-generated text?), a book/pamphlet with no specified author (or a collective of authors, or a corporation as an author), a corporation or from outer space, once it is out, Congress cannot write a law abridging its freedom. There is no problem defining categories of objects beyond homo sapiens that can produce speech. The answer is “any speech is protected, no matter what its origin”. Unless you decide to change the 1st amendment of course. Maybe to something like “freedom of personal speech”. I’d be very much against. > [@](#): > > 1. Even ignoring all of the above, the Move to Campaign aims to clarify exactly the uncertainty you’re arguing on behalf of. Their basic proposal: > You can see the full text of the proposed amendment [here](https://movetoamend.org/democracy-amendments); it boils down to “However it was written and interpreted before, we want to change it to make it clear that constitutional rights apply to natural persons only, not artificial groupings thereof.” Thanks for the link. It’s utter stupidity of course. For example, a political party is an artificial grouping of people. This amendment would allow stifling them. I also wonder (presuming of course this comes from lefties) how they intend to write it so that unions are exempt. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/638176.md?page=2)