This supreme court case allowed corporations to be " a natural person " which, then gave them full protection under the Bill of Rights as if they were a private citizen…including free speech. A problem with this is the fact that corporations have more money to achieve their ends…law suits, indemnity insurance to protect them even if they act illegally, their free speech is louder since they have the cash to advertise and on and on…my question is : will this court ruling be appealed ? Will this ruling be repealed in our lifetimes?..or…ever?
And some people are richer than others and are able to buy more influence. You think they care?
Supreme Court decisions cannot be appealed, because there is no higher court. Decisions can be overridden by an act of Congress (in some cases, a constitutional amendment is required) or overturned by a new ruling from a later Supreme Court.
Neither outcome is likely in this case . . . not in our lifetimes, or ever.
Further discussion belongs in GD. If corporations did not have protected status as persons, politicians would be free to tax their income in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, which would make investing and wealth accumulation much more difficult. (This was the issue in the Santa Clara case.) Also, as you point out, politicians would be freed to regulate corporate advertising much more than they do today. This would be a dubious blessing, as companies and industries without political influence would be likely to find their abillity to communicate with the public greatly impaired. Repealing the corporation-as-person doctrine might also have unintended consequences in the areas of tort law and contracts.
If you don’t like corporations, rather than waiting for politicians to repeal Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific and pass new laws and regulations, you would be better off taking matters into your own hands by declining to work for or invest in a corporation or purchase corporate products.
Could you clue me in as to how one can obtain basic necessities in the United States without purchasing corporate products? Those of us who wish to curb corporations’ power are not to blame for the excessive power they already hold.
Huh? Corporate tax rate was 11 percent last time I checked, and likely to be reduced if not eliminated in the next congressional session entirely. Homo sapiens tax rate is 33 percent for me. Are you sure you know what you are posting about?
I imagine it would be pretty difficult. You’d have to shop in locally-owned small businesses and co-ops, and, to the extent possible, eschew national brands. You’d have to work for a small business, or a non-profit, or a university, or the government. You’d have to forego investing in the stock market. But my point is, if you think corporations have too much power, you can do these things, and you can reduce, although not completely eliminate, the role of large corporations in your life. The alternative–waiting for politicians to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn a 120-year-old ruling, and then enact new laws and regulations more to your liking–just isn’t going to happen. Too many people like me, with too much of a stake in the existing system (Just try and take my 401(k) away!), are going to fight you every step of the way.
The marginal corporate income tax rate ranges from 34% to 39% on income greater than $75,000.
The issue behind the corporations-as-persons doctrine, in any case, isn’t high tax rates but [i/discriminatory* tax rates. Because the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th amendment applies to corporations-as-persons, states can’t tax Coke one way and Pepsi another. They can’t pass one schedule of tax rates for a politically favored industry and another for one that’s less popular. If you rescind this protection, you’re liable to set off a lobbying scramble which will leave corporations more involved in the political process, not less.
I agree that you would be hard-pressed to purchase goods where corporations are not involved. However, remember that even most “mom&pop” operations are incorporated as corporations or otherwise organized as entities. Any individual producing a product or providing many kinds of services will be advised to form an entity to limit potential personal liability from business lawsuits. “Curbing corporations’ power” means curbing entrepeneurs and “small locally-owned businesses and coops” (almost all of which are corporations–the coop part arises from their tax treatment), universities, non-profits and others (these are all mostly corporations or one sort or another) just as much as it means curbing the multinationals which are the current target of the anti-globalization faction.
The tax rate confusion probably arises from comparing apples and oranges. You sometimes see “average” tax rates cited. While 39% is the top marginal rate for individuals, the “average” rate is lower, even for high income taxpayers, because lower rates are applied to income up to the marginal point, and deductions and credits are factored in too. Same thing for corporate tax rates–11% is not in the tax code–it might have appeared somewhere as an estimated average rate for some set of corporations.
[Reserving further comments for GD.]
While trying to avoid this turning into a GD, I should clarify what I meant by “curbing corporate power.” First of all, although "corporation could technically refer to and incorporated entity, it’s very unusual to refer to a non-profit organization as a corporation. For example, a “corporate job” is one in the private sector. Second, it seems pretty obvious that someone concerned about the excessive power of corporations is only concerned about powerful corporations. Mom-and-pop business don’t control the media or make campaign contributions that determine the outcome of elections.
I appreciate the efforts, but I think that except for the General Answer that USSC decisions can’t be “appealed” this is inherently more a Great Debate than a General Question.
I’ll shoot it over there.