# Corporations declared to be people? Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517 "2012-06-18T14:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/21 "2012-06-18T23:30:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Corporations are, by definition, legal persons (NOT real, or “natural” persons). That means they are to be treated like persons in very limited legal situations. > > The courts have ruled that, yes, under certain laws, corporations are to be treated the same way as people, in limited circumstances. > > No court has ever ruled that corporations are the same thing as people in every way. That’s obviously absurd - which is an indication that it didn’t actually happen. > > It is widely believed, but false. What I hear isn’t that corporations are exactly the same as people so much as corporations are continually testing the limits on their person-hood and supposedly conservative judges keep finding in favor of increased person-hood rights for corporations. So, the fear isn’t that it’s already happened, just that is seems to be happening. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/22 "2012-06-19T00:01:28Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > You can’t be sent to jail. Possession of a controlled substance is an offence under the [Controlled Substances Act 1970](http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm), unless one has dispensation from the Attorney General. Corporate personhood doesn’t obviate individual liability in every instance. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The government may not censor speech, regardless of the source. Which wasn’t what BCRA §203 was doing. It was penalising disbursements for electioneering communications by labor and corporations. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > However, no court has ever said corporations are people in every sense. Neither did Cecil. Here’s what he wrote: > [@Cecil](#): > > However, we live in a country where the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect the rights of former slaves, to mean that corporations are the legal equivalent of humans > [@Cecil](#): > > It wasn’t sovereign citizens who dreamed up the idea that the 14th Amendment created fictional persons. It was that hotbed of extremism, the Supreme Court. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood) provides the basis for considering corporations individual persons rather than associations of people. Relevant: > [@USC](#): > > 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; > [@Chief Justice Morrison Waite](#): > > The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/23 "2012-06-19T00:04:38Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Sure, but my point was that the SOURCE of the speech cannot be a reason for censorhip. The government may not declare that certain sources of speech are to be censored. Your exact words were: “The government may not censor speech, regardless of the source”. This implies that the government can never censor speech, which is incorrect. And source _is_ relevant. If we’re going to say that freedom of speech automatically applies to _everything_, not just humans, then it would bring up absurd questions like whether I am allowed to turn off my radio when a political speech is coming out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/24 "2012-06-19T00:17:26Z")
…actually, that last example doesn’t quite work does it? Substitute for a computer generating random strings. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/25 "2012-06-19T13:18:11Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Didn’t the column linked by \*\*Colibri \*\*in post #14 do exactly that almost 10 years before the current column that just mentioned the concept in passing? Oops, I missed that. Thanks. Wow. Never mind, Cecil - please don’t publish a column on this, because your last column was highly slanted toward the “omigod corporations have been declared people” nonsense. From the article: “What most people don’t know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk.” Whoa. False - and impossible, of course! "even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.) " Arguing something is just arguing something. Only if the courts accept the argument does it become reality. And, in this case, the court (in this case, the California Supreme court) REJECTED the argument. (The case was settled out of court before it could go to further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.) So there you go. “fact is, the courts have been chipping away at corporate personhood for years” Well, there you go. Clearly they don’t have all the same rights as people. “But it’d be nice to have a clear-cut ruling, say, that limiting campaign contributions by big businesses doesn’t mean you’re restricting their First Amendment rights.” That ruling was made long ago - and still stands! Citizens United didn’t change any laws or rules related to donations to campaigns or candidates, which are still banned entirely from corporate treasuries. (Nor did Citizens United apply only to corporations, since it had nothing whatsoever to do with corporate personhood, but whatever). It’s interesting that the question Cecil was responding to was also correcting him. “Corporations have been declared people,” on its face, is just as much a loony legal theory as the one he was bashing in his latest column. I remember some people tried to lampoon the CU decision by trying to get a corporation on a ballot to run for office. They were denied, of course. This simply proved the point - that they were wrong about the law. The joke was on them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/26 "2012-06-19T13:21:56Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > And source _is_ relevant. If we’re going to say that freedom of speech automatically applies to _everything_, not just humans, then it would bring up absurd questions like whether I am allowed to turn off my radio when a political speech is coming out of it. No, the question would be if the government could make a law forcing you to turn off your radio when political speech was coming out if it. You bring up a great example. Obviously the source of the speech is not the radio, it’s the person speaking in the radio station - who is a person. Also obvious is that for the government to claim that it had the power to force people to turn off their radios, or ban the sale or possession of radios, simply because it didn’t like the speech coming from it would be blatantly unconstitutional. And courts have held that such ridiculous attempts to suppress speech are unconstitutional. Thanks for proving my point beautifully. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/27 "2012-06-19T13:24:24Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Possession of a controlled substance is an offence under the [Controlled Substances Act 1970](http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm), unless one has dispensation from the Attorney General. Corporate personhood doesn’t obviate individual liability in every instance. But it’s the corporation that possesses it, and it’s a person! Right? See how loony this theory gets when tested against reality? That’s the point. > [@](#): > > Which wasn’t what BCRA §203 was doing. It was penalising disbursements for electioneering communications by labor and corporations. Which is unconstitutional. Spending money on speech is a right of speech. See Buckley v. Valeo. > [@](#): > > Neither did Cecil. Here’s what he wrote: That’s not all he wrote though. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood) provides the basis for considering corporations individual persons rather than associations of people. Relevant: [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/28 "2012-06-19T13:25:55Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If the OP’s question is “can you bypass the law by creating a corporation which takes away legal responsibility for your personal actions?”, then the answer is no. AFAIK, all the states have laws declaring the requirements for establishing a corporation, and they spell out criminal and civil legal liability quite clearly. Among these are that the officers and executives of a corporation are responsible for the corporation’s actions, as said upthread by **md2000**. You can’t just claim that a corporate policy somehow emerged from a non-local distributed process; sooner or later some human person or group of persons is held accountable. Right…because corporations aren’t people in every sense. ---
**Author:** ![Veneriable\_Slacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/838e76/32.png) [@Veneriable\_Slacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Veneriable_Slacks)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/29 "2012-06-19T14:08:53Z")
Lance Strongarm - Loony tax protester theories? Learn about Tom Cryer, a lawyer who tried to prove wrong his loony tax protester friend. After two years of investigation, all he got from the IRS was threats and intimidation. He told the the IRS to either “show me the law” or he would stop overpaying his taxes (we sign our believed tax amount under penalty of perjury, remember?). He was tried for willful failure to file. “Willful failure to file” is a thought crime, ie We, the IRS, and a jury will agree that you really think otherwise. With Tom Cryer, the jury believed him. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/30 "2012-06-19T14:38:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Obviously the source of the speech is not the radio, it’s the person speaking in the radio station - who is a person. > > Also obvious is that for the government to claim that it had the power to force people to turn off their radios, or ban the sale or possession of radios, simply because it didn’t like the speech coming from it would be blatantly unconstitutional. And courts have held that such ridiculous attempts to suppress speech are unconstitutional. > > Thanks for proving my point beautifully. You might want to hold on the thanks for a minute. Because of course I realized myself the radio example doesn’t work which is why I said as much and changed it to be a computer generating text. The text that such a machine produces is not currently considered constitutionally protected speech. This runs counter to your point. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/31 "2012-06-19T14:47:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You might want to hold on the thanks for a minute. > > Because of course I realized myself the radio example doesn’t work But it DOES! It works PERFECTLY! > [@](#): > > which is why I said as much and changed it to be a computer generating text. The text that such a machine produces is not currently considered constitutionally protected speech. Really? Got proof for that assertion? I don’t think it’s been tested in court, but I say you’d be wrong about that too. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/32 "2012-06-19T20:31:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t think it’s been tested in court, but I say you’d be wrong about that too. Well if it’s not been tested in court then there is no precedence and at best we can say “I don’t see why it _wouldn’t_ be protected”. But sure, I’ll take the opposite side to you: I think a government employee can switch off their computer that is generating random strings without fear of being sued. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/33 "2012-06-19T20:54:49Z")
Oops, _precedent_. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/34 "2012-06-19T22:03:47Z")
I think corporations are people. And they owe a lot of back taxes. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/35 "2012-06-20T02:05:20Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well if it’s not been tested in court then there is no precedence and at best we can say “I don’t see why it _wouldn’t_ be protected”. > > But sure, I’ll take the opposite side to you:\*\* I think a government employee can switch off their computer that is generating random strings without fear of being sued.\*\* Uh, but that’s not an example of what’s at stake. Can the government ban shut down YOUR computer that is generating something (and not just random strings, we’re talking about speech here)? Suppose you programmed a computer to generate speech about politics. Could the government ban it, based on nothing but its content (there are no viruses in it, etc) and say that it can do so because your computer isn’t human? And while we’re at it, could the government ban the sale of all computers used for speech, like we’re doing now, based on the theory that money isn’t speech, or computers aren’t speech, or computers don’t have rights? Would any of those be acceptable to you? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/36 "2012-06-20T08:22:39Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Uh, but that’s not an example of what’s at stake. Yes it is. You have claimed that anything and everything is protected by the right to free speech, whether human or not. This overly broad statement has all sorts of weird implications — such as that the government itself should not be able to shut down their own computer if it was generating random text strings. OTOH it’s a straw man to talk about whether the government can shut down _your_ computer because the government is not entitled to do anything with my possessions unless I’m suspected of committing some crime, or I need to pay taxes or whatever. That’s whether it’s generating speech or not. ---
**Author:** ![MikeBB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MikeBB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeBB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/37 "2012-06-20T08:51:17Z")
I worked in this area of law for years. There’s nothing unusual or remarkable about corporate personhood. It’s simple and clear, once you understand the background concepts. And those background concepts have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. To simplify a complex history: Corporations were invented as vehicles through which investors could pool their money. The invention of corporations was a kind of leap forward in legal technology. Before corporations were available, a business with multiple owners was a partnership in which all partners had management authority over the business, and all partners were personally liable for the debts of the business. The main point of corporation laws was to assure passive investors that they could never lose more than the amount of their investment. A corporation is simply a way for a group of people to jointly own property and enter into contracts. Corporate personhood expresses the relationship between the owners, the managers, the corporate property, and the people who do business with the corporation. **Example** : Suppose that Bob and Fred are plumbers. They decide to go into business together, so they form BF Plumbing, Inc. Bob and Fred combine their property to form the business. Bob contributes some tools and a truck, while Fred contributes some land. They borrow money from First National Bank with no personal guarantees. Corporate personhood makes it clear that neither Bob nor Fred now own the tools, truck, or land. That property is now owned by a new person called BF Plumbing, Inc. And if BF Plumbing, Inc. doesn’t pay back its loan, then the bank can’t collect from Bob or Fred. The bank can only collect from this imaginary person called BF Plumbing, Inc., because that’s who it signed the contract with. Now suppose that Fred is driving the truck to a plumbing job, and he runs a stop sign and injures a little old lady. She can sue the corporation, because she was injured by corporate property operated by a corporate representative. She can also sue Fred, because he was the actual flesh-and-blood person driving the truck. But she can’t sue Bob, because he didn’t own the truck. He used to own the truck, but then he gave it to the corporation. Those are the sorts of scenarios that corporate personhood is designed to address. The questions that arise from these scenarios aren’t particularly interesting to non-lawyers, but they do require clear and reliable answers. That’s why personhood is part of the bedrock of the very concept of a corporation. Without personhood, lots of basic business questions would not have clear answers. Once you understand this background, the 14th amendment questions are easy. A corporation has free speech, equal protection, and so forth because it’s simply a collection of people. If Bob can speak and Fred can speak, then the combination of Bob and Fred should also be able to speak. There’s no reason to take away people’s rights simply because they’ve decided to pool their money and appoint a spokesman. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/38 "2012-06-20T10:25:33Z")
Exactly. All the laws and rights that apply to people carry over to corporations because they are simply collections of people. So if Bob or Fred can get married, own a passport or run for president, so their corporation should be able to. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2012, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/39 "2012-06-20T10:48:38Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Exactly. All the laws and rights that apply to people carry over to corporations because they are simply collections of people. > > So if Bob or Fred can get married, own a passport or run for president, so their corporation should be able to. No – only some rights that belong to real people also belong to corporations. So, corporations can own property, have employees, go bankrupt, and carry on political campaigns. However, they cannot “get married, own a passport or run for president” – they are not treated the same as real people. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/40 "2012-06-20T11:06:01Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > No – only some rights that belong to real people also belong to corporations. So, corporations can own property, have employees, go bankrupt, and carry on political campaigns. However, they cannot “get married, own a passport or run for president” – they are not treated the same as real people. Absolutely – that’s what I was actually illustrating. Some people upthread were implying that if a person is legally allowed to do something it is entailed that corporations must also be allowed. That’s not the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=3)