advertisement

GEORGE KENNEDY: Constitutional debate alive and well when it comes to corporations' role in elections

Thursday, September 16, 2010 | 1:13 p.m. CDT

You may not have noticed, but Sept. 17 is the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. As far as I can tell, no celebrations are planned locally.

Even the League of Women Voters, as observant a band of patriots as you’re likely to find, chose to avoid entanglement with the weekend by holding its Constitution Day colloquy prematurely, on Wednesday.

MoreStory


Related Media

I joined a roomful of good citizens in the County Commission chamber to hear three lawyers and a political scientist wrangle politely over an intriguing and timely question: “If you prick them, do they bleed? Corporations as persons.”

The Constitution itself doesn’t mention corporations, but you don’t have to be a professor of either law or political science to know that they’re real enough and sufficiently important to warrant repeated attention from Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which are in the Constitution.

The most recent attention and the proximate cause of the colloquy was the Court’s 5-4 ruling earlier this year in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision, the majority gutted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

McCain-Feingold had prohibited corporations, and unions and non-profits, from sponsoring “electioneering communications” – aka television ads – within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Congress had the power to impose such regulation.

This time, however, the majority used the narrow issue of funding for a video called “Hillary: the movie” to issue a broad declaration that corporations enjoy the right of unlimited political speech under the First Amendment.

The scholars disagreed Wednesday not only about the correct answer to the “Are corporations persons?” question but about the wisdom, the intellectual quality and the likely effects of the Court’s decision.

Law Prof. Paul Litton took the position that seemed to a non-expert the clearest. “Are corporations persons? No,” he said. Unlike us, corporations are creations of government and subject to all sorts of regulation by it. The Court’s ruling, he said, was wrong in both law and fact and puts at risk the “fair marketplace of ideas” on which free elections depend.

Political science Prof. Marvin Overby disagreed, collegially. Corporations, including universities, have been treated as persons since the 18th century days of the English legal commentator Blackstone, he said. Our first chief justice, John Marshall, treated them as such in an 1819 opinion. He also noted that the Citizens United side of this case was joined by the ACLU and the AFL/CIO.

Harmful effects of the ruling, he argued, are only “assumed.” Corporations haven’t dominated political spending through their PACs, and they may choose not to do so even with their new freedom to spend directly.

Law Prof. Christine Wells agreed that corporations may prefer to continue concealing their political spending behind PACs; but she attacked the Court’s “intellectual dishonesty” and criticized the ruling both for overstating the problems posed by McCain-Feingold and for misstating First Amendment law.

The one point of unanimity came in response to the question of what Congress now has the power to do. Prof. Overby said public financing of campaigns is the obvious solution. He added, “Hell will freeze over” before that happens. There were nods of agreement all around.

Afterward, I thought those “39 brave men who changed the course of history” by signing the document in 1787, as the Constitution Center describes them, would have been pleased – and maybe a bit surprised – to find their creation still alive and still debated in 2010.

I plan to raise a glass to toast their courage and their wisdom.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

John Schultz September 16, 2010 | 11:28 p.m.

I see lots of moaning about corporations being able to spend in elections, but zero about unions. I wonder why that might be?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith September 17, 2010 | 5:14 a.m.

In the United States the principle of "corporation as a person" was established in 1819 by the United States Supreme Court. That's 181 years ago.

While there have been some spectacular exceptions, the Supreme Court has been reticent to totally overturn long established legal precedents. They may believe that obligation rests with Congress. For the Court, rocking the boat is one thing but turning the boat over is quite another.

A complete voiding of "corporation as a person" would likely have more consequences than campaign financing, and even those on the political Left might find those consequences very disagreeable. As they say in the Missouri Ozarks, "It just might crawl up and bite your a**." Lovely sentiment!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith September 17, 2010 | 7:43 a.m.

Sould read "191 years ago."

(Report Comment)
Brad Naksuthin September 22, 2010 | 8:05 p.m.

A Corporation is a wonderful way for a businessman to protect himself from paying his debts.
Suppose you open a restaurant. One of the cooks serves up bad meat to customers. Customers are poisoned. The court not only sentences you to jail but seizes your house, car, bank accounts, jewelry and your 4 other restaurants.
Yikes. How can you protect yourself. Easy. Form a corporation. Now if your cook poisons someone, they may be able to go after your restaurant ...but all your other assets...car, home, jewelry and those other 4 restaurants are safe from the hands of the law. You can go on as if nothing happened.

What a wonderful country.

That's because a corporation is considered a legal "person" so it isn't you who has to pay the price for your own bad actions ... but your corporation.
It's like being a criminal but having someone else stand in for you when it comes time for sentencing. Then the next day you can start up another scam and continue under a new name. How wonderful

I've never thought much of the concept of a corporation being "a person".
I mean can a corporation ....
get married or divorced
serve on jury duty
join the army
get a drivers license
attend school
go to prison
be executed
vote
eat ,drink, sleep, urinate, breath
feel pain, get sick,
get a haircut
learn to swim, cook, dance, garden?
have children

The list of things a corporation CAN'T do that a PERSON can do would go on for pages
In fact my dog can do more things on the list above than a corporation...yet no one is about to call my dog a person or allow him to enter into contracts, buy and sell and all the other things corporations are allowed to do.

Yet somehow the courts have decided that a corporation is a person. Strange. Because a corporation doesn't have any of the attributes of any PERSON I know.

WHY NOT JUST call a chair a PERSON?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements