# corporate Personhood? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 15, 2016, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659 "2016-10-15T23:08:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/21 "2019-09-06T17:34:24Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > You asked for cites, and I provided them. I asked you for cites, and you did not. Funny that, if corporations could do all these things you insist they could, that they haven’t since 1886. You did provide cites, but their content doesn’t address the issues raised. Many things are forbidden under the law, until the law is challenged in court. _Citizens United_, for instance. I didn’t disagree that those cites say what you say they say, I disagree that what they say would matter at all if a court was hearing the case. There is no exception in or to the Dictionary Act in US law that I know of: corporations are persons, and they have all the same rights as any other person. Thus far, none of the cites you’ve provided address that at all. I would be happy to be wrong about this; I _want_ to be wrong about this. But so far you haven’t shown that to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/23 "2019-09-06T18:52:16Z")
In order to vote, you must register, and when you register, you need to show some form of ID. The listed forms of ID for Colorado include birth certificates, driver’s licenses (for which you need a birth certificate or something like it), passports, and a variety of other things, none of which corporations can get. It does not include articles of incorporation. A corporation can own a car, but a corporation cannot get a driver’s license. My guess about adoption is that somewhere in a state’s adoption laws there is a distinction about natural persons, which corporations are not. In any case there are age requirements. Is your corporation 21 years old? Corporations do not have all the rights of a natural person. If they did, the phrase “natural person” would not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/24 "2019-09-06T18:58:25Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > Corporations do not have all the rights of a natural person. If they did, the phrase “natural person” would not exist. It’s a good thing that nobody in this thread has claimed that corporations have all the rights of a natural person, then. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/25 "2019-09-06T19:46:46Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > For prosecution purposes, if they collaborate under the table, they have a shared monopoly. So sort of an informal cartel, or an unorganized oligopoly then? ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/26 "2019-09-06T20:03:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > It’s a good thing that nobody in this thread has claimed that corporations have all the rights of a natural person, then. They haven’t? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > … There is no exception in or to the Dictionary Act in US law that I know of: corporations are persons, and they have all the same rights as any other person. … ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/27 "2019-09-06T20:14:40Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > They haven’t? You don’t see any difference in those statements? :dubious: ETA: Look, I’ll save you the time and hassle: I didn’t say “natural person” because that’s not what the law says; the law says they are persons. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/28 "2019-09-07T04:24:22Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > It’s a good thing that nobody in this thread has claimed that corporations have all the rights of a natural person, then. See Cecil’s statement, which I quoted, and disagreed with, in post 9. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/29 "2019-09-07T05:47:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > There is no exception in or to the Dictionary Act in US law that I know of: corporations are persons, and they have all the same rights as any other person. Thus far, none of the cites you’ve provided address that at all. There’s a pretty big exception right there in it: > [@](#): > > In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, **unless the context indicates otherwise** …the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. Also, it explicitly only applies to interpretations of Acts of Congress. It has nothing whatsoever to do with state laws. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/30 "2019-09-07T05:50:22Z")
I remember it; I replied to it which is what began our conversation. Can we break your post down and look at the individual things? For instance, adoption in Alaska. I see that the Alaska statutes ([http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/statutes.asp#01.10.060](http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/statutes.asp#01.10.060)) define corporations as persons: > [@](#): > > (8) “person” includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, organization, business trust, or society, as well as a natural person; You said, and your cite also shows, that Alaskan adults over the age 18 can adopt. Why couldn’t a corporation that was more than 18 years old adopt? Is there a law that specifically says only a natural person can adopt? I did look at the [Alaska Rules of Court - Alaska Adoption Rules](https://public.courts.alaska.gov/web/rules/docs/adop.pdf), but I didn’t see a single occurrence of the phrase “natural person” and only 3 times that “corporation” was used, although one of those was as part of the word “incorporation”. [Alaska Statute 25.23.10](http://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#25.23.020) says > [@](#): > > Sec. 25.23.020. Who may adopt. > (a) The following persons may adopt: > (1) a husband and wife together; > > ``` > (2) an unmarried adult; > > (3) the unmarried father or mother of the person to be adopted; > > (4) a married person without the other spouse joining as a petitioner, if the person to be adopted is not the other spouse, and if > (A) the other spouse is a parent of the person to be adopted and consents to the adoption; > > (B) the petitioner and the other spouse are legally separated; or > > (C) the failure of the other spouse to join in the petition or to agree to the adoption is excused by the court by reason of prolonged unexplained absence, unavailability, incapacity, or circumstances constituting an unreasonable withholding of consent. > > ``` I didn’t see it when perusing the statutes, so I have to ask: does Alaska define an adult as only being a natural person? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/31 "2019-09-07T05:54:15Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > There’s literally an exception in it: What does that phrase mean? Has that been hashed out in the courts? What “context” would indicate that corporations were not supposed to be included in any law that applies to a person? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/32 "2019-09-07T18:43:51Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > What does that phrase mean? Has that been hashed out in the courts? > > What “context” would indicate that corporations were not supposed to be included in any law that applies to a person? Lack of joinder! You owe me $20 billion! IN GOLD! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/33 "2019-09-07T22:32:57Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Has this ever been attempted by a corporation, tho? Has the law ever been tested? I’m willing to bet it’s never been tested in court that a corporation cannot register to vote or to receive a driver’s license… > I can’t see why a corporation that wanted to cast a vote couldn’t sue to register to vote and I don’t see why they should be denied. It doesn’t need to be tested in court because it doesn’t pass the common sense test. You really don’t see a reason why they should be denied the right to vote? Creating a corporation takes just a couple hundred dollars in filing fees. A person with a billion dollars could right now create a few hundred million corporations. In 18 years, by your rationalization, all of those corporations would have the right to vote. So now, this one rich person can control every single election. He can vote HIMSELF into office, as long as he spread his corporations out among the entire country and registered them equally among the states. He wins all 100% of the electoral vote and a vast majority of the popular vote. Does that sound like democracy to you? If corporations could vote, then the richest people could _directly_ control the elections. The fact that no one has tried to do this, and that it has never been challenged in court, is enough reason to believe that it is impossible. If it were even close to possible, _someone_ would have tried it. Hell, a foreign government would have tried it! They could just give a citizen a billion dollars and control America. Absence of any court challenge is enough to prove that your idea is so wrong, that it doesn’t even require case law. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/34 "2019-09-07T22:51:22Z")
I realize I was using general number terms like 1 billion and hundreds of millions. It’s not quite that insane. But if the average filing fee is about $200, then with $10 billion (pennies for an organization interested in controlling the entire United States), a person or group could create 50 million voters (once those corporations turned 18 years old). That’s 15% of the current population. When was the last time the presidential election was decided by more than a third of that? Anyway, the point is valid, if not the exact math. ---
**Author:** ![LTU2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/22d042/32.png) [@LTU2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LTU2)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/35 "2019-09-09T03:16:30Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Federal law supersede state law (Supremacy Clause). Corporations are persons, not partial people, according to the law. Anything a person can legally do, a corporation can legally do because they are also persons. I welcome your cite showing otherwise. Federal Court’s lack authority over such state matters such as divorce, probate, domestic relations, etc. There are judicially created exceptions such as noted in Marshall v. Marshall, the Anna Nicole Smith case. That’s my source, but I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![LTU2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/22d042/32.png) [@LTU2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LTU2)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/36 "2019-09-09T04:06:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I have to ask: does Alaska define an adult as only being a natural person? For purposes of the ADOPTION laws, the definition is such: Sec.25.23.240 (1) “Adult” means an individual who has reached the age of majority. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/37 "2019-09-09T05:37:58Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > It doesn’t need to be tested in court because it doesn’t pass the common sense test. If a common sense test was all it took, IMO, they never would have defined a person to include corporations in the first place. So, yeah, I have some trouble with what might actually constitutes “common sense” in many instances. > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > You really don’t see a reason why they should be denied the right to vote? Oh, I see lots of them. I just don’t see how it can be done with the current laws, should someone really want to test things. I admit that the phrase “unless the context indicates otherwise” sounds like a nifty potential loophole, but I am not at all confident that “context” could be found when applying laws to actual situations that wasn’t simply arbitrary. Ya know, like “ceremonial deism”. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659/38 "2019-09-09T06:01:12Z")
My apologies; I meant to thank everyone for the conversation in my previous post. Thanks, folks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporate-personhood/768659.md?page=1)