# Corporation personhood: what if we got rid of it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076 "2009-09-14T20:12:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/21 "2009-09-15T16:07:45Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The shareholders do not vote out anybody. it does not happen. Major corporation have thousands and thousands of stockholders who have no idea of the internal management of the corp. They are scattered around the world. The only ones that show up are those with huge portfolios. But proxy statements give the incumbents huge power. So whose fault is that? The stockholders have a choice…they CAN fire the board. If they choose not to, then why should they complain? And shareholder revolts do happen. Look at these articles, for instance: > **[Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/19/exxonmobil.oil)** > > A shareholder revolt at ExxonMobil led by the billionaire Rockefeller family has won the support of four significant British institutional investors who will call on Monday for a shakeup in the governance of the world's biggest oil company [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6614926.html](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6614926.html) > **[BBC NEWS | Business | Shareholder revolt stuns Disney](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3528103.stm)** > > Michael Eisner's power is reduced, as Disney splits the roles of chairman and chief executive. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/22 "2009-09-15T16:32:19Z")
I guess I’m confused. What protections do corporations have now that you would like to get rid of? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/23 "2009-09-15T17:59:57Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I guess I’m confused. What protections do corporations have now that you would like to get rid of? He wants to make corporate offers more liable for bad acts committed by the corporation. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/24 "2009-09-15T18:48:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, I suppose, in theory, it would be either the writer’s first amendment rights, or the owners of the NYT that still had first amendment rights. So in theory the writer still has his first amendment right to pass out handwritten leaflets on streetcorners and the NYT owners still have the first amendment right to stare at their idle presses while muttering “My precious…” I figure without the NYT Corporation’s first amendment rights, a government could easily make the above situation come true. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/25 "2009-09-15T19:20:01Z")
The Supreme Court just heard a case saying that corporations should not have any restraints of their campaign donations. Part of the logic is they are persons and are being denied their right of free speech. But they are not people. They can live forever. they can be in many places at once. they are international, having business in many nations. Corporations are not people. This court however works for corporations and I would not be surprised if they lift the campaign donation rules. The Roberts Court sided with corps against employees 100 percent, so far. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/26 "2009-09-15T20:21:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > He wants to make corporate offers more liable for bad acts committed by the corporation. But then you might as well just outlaw corporations entirely. That is the sole purpose for their existence. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/27 "2009-09-15T21:11:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But then you might as well just outlaw corporations entirely. That is the sole purpose for their existence. No, the explicit virtue of a corporation, and nearly the only reason they exist, is to offer _financial protection to investors_. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting corporate officers from their failures, although they are not normally held financially liable for their decisions. The law assumes that stockholders choose their own officers (and they do) and it’s therefore on their heads if things go bad. If they fail to exercise due dilligence, that’s not the law’s problem. The advantage is that it enables investment risking only the investment amount. Companies which are corporations can accure more capital and expand quickly, or look at riskier (but more profitable) speculative ventures. As a practical matter, it also frees up vastly more of a nation’s wealth for investment purposes. People used to frequently have large cash stockpiles, which they needed if their businesses went south, or to handle unexpected failures. Corporations, along with other financial instruments, let people invest their wealth actively and put it to work. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/28 "2009-09-22T13:43:48Z")
I would point out that the corporate veil can be drawn back, so corporate personhood is not inviolate. ---
**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:** [September 22, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/29 "2009-09-22T20:31:53Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > I would point out that the corporate veil can be drawn back, so corporate personhood is not inviolate. Oh, just to expand, becaus that’s a good point I forgot about. The “corporate veil” which seperates investors from liability can be breached or “pierced” if the investor also acted as an active manager. You can still provide very high-level direction (such as voting for the Board or CEO), but that’s about it. Even sitting on the Board these days requires more liability. ---
**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 22, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/30 "2009-09-22T20:40:00Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, we do. If an executive breaks the law, he can be sent to prison. If he acts against the interests of the shareholders and board of directors, he can be kicked out. But can a corporation really break the law? Or is it always just an individual employee who breaks the law. I mean, has a corporation ever been sent to prison? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076/31 "2009-09-22T21:15:58Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But can a corporation really break the law? Or is it always just an individual employee who breaks the law. > > I mean, has a corporation ever been sent to prison? That is why corporate personhood is wrong. You have to escape logic when you declare them people. They obviously are not. Then corporate charters were supposed to be renewed. That fell away a long time ago. Revoking a corps charter would keep other corps in line. The logic was that they were supposed to be helping the country. Companies like Enron, Blackwater, Halliburton should have had their corporation charters revoked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporation-personhood-what-if-we-got-rid-of-it/510076.md?page=1)