Is a Corporation a person?

Post Reply New Topic

What special rights and protections are you talking about? Is there some sort of "I was under corporate orders" defense to criminal charges that I'm unaware of? How did it work out for Jeff Skillet and Ken Lay?



Now you seem to be talking about unintended consequences, not an inherent quality. There is nothing in the definition of a corporation that calls for protectionism and government collusion, those are more like artifacts of the screwy way our political system is set up, and unrelated to the question of corporate person-hood.

By "just a thing", you mean a collection of people, all of whom possess individual rights. Is there a reason why any of these peoples rights don't transfer onto the collective whole when they choose to go into business together?



My problems with unions are limited to the public sector ones, which should not be allowed to exist because they control both sides of the negotiating table. Notice that this has nothing to do with any question of personhood on the part of said unions.
Perhaps it's you who should be asking yourself why you have a problem with political speech by corporations, but are just peachy when it's unions dumping millions into politics?

I think you know I was only using labor unions as an example of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. My post has nothing otherwise to do with the validity of organized labor.
And sure, those individuals comprising the corporations have individual rights, but I still fail to see how that in turn makes the organization they comprise one big person with the same rights. And no, I happen to think that corporations - like unions - have the right to influence politics with speech and money (though the latter has been greatly abused), but neither is a person like you or me. They are just comprised of people, but otherwise are just non-thinking, soulless things. Seriously, is WP a person because human beings like you and me comprise it?

Jeff Skilling

You are talking about a clear case of fraud/insider trading, where the person left and sold their shares . Shareholder can hold an ex-CEO to account, but even this can sometimes be difficult.Non shareholders to account can be tricker Fraud case can be very complex though, one famous case in the UK, it went through several mistrials, as the jury could not understand the technical nature of the evidence. There is an argument for Judge only trials in these cases.

Back to your question here is an example, those with US citizenship who earn money abroad still have to pay tax in the US, regardless if they live there or not or bring the money in. Corporations don't have to so long as they don't move the money into the country.

If your degree was an asset like intangible assets companies can register, you could transfer it offshore if you as individual were treated as a corporation. Then the earnings you make, you could claim were off shore profits since it was derived from this asset.

Companies don't have citizenship, we can all invest in companies in other countries, so they aren't transferring you citizen rights to another country you don't have rights in.



I think is largely is the concept and approach.

Individual rights by definition cannot be transferred. They can be represented.

However when they become homogenised they are no longer individual.

It tends to extend further than that these days.

Also legal personality is a real concept that applies to corporations by law.

It is "legal fiction" which means something accepted as true by courts that may not actually be true. However as a concept it exists, and is applied in those courts.

Just a quick question?

In deciding corporations are like people did SCOTUS specify only U.S. corporations were considered?

Could a foreign corporation give election funds to candidates?

If only U.S. corporations, what if they're owned by, say, North Korea? Can this corporation legitimately effect our elections?

What if the U.S. corporation is not wholly owned, but instead only largely owned by foreign citizens? I'm guessing that with Saudi, Iranian, etc. money floating around that they MUST certainly have large investments in U.S. corporations (in a big way).

If so is this a legitimate ruling or one that would weaken our country?

Was this ever considered?

It's funny how conservatives, who damn the unelected Supreme Court for legalizing gay marriage to the point of calling for the nullification of their rulings, will absolutely up and down praise and defend the court's decision for this corporate personhood idiocy.

There is nothing stopping a foreign individual funding a party in the UK. Which mean they can influence policy, without being part of the electorate. I don't like this idea.

I think legally the UK is more transparent, but that doesn't mean anything as there are plenty ways round the law. I can give several examples. In US there is tacit acceptance of much of the dodgy antics of lobbyists. They don't want to legislate because they never had it so good.

We have also had politicians being stung by investigative programs like Dispatches/Panorama, taking cash for questions/or policy support. These programs have people pose a businessmen from other countries, with websites and backstory.

There is a legitimate argument in favour of campaign funding caps, also campaigning goes on way too long. Most of that time is spent not discussing policy. You could spend a quarter of the time on it and still have time to campaign the country and get you policies out. The country also has to be run.

In the case of companies, often they can set up a shell company in the country the wish to influence.

The thing I have been pondering over lately is this argument of intellectual property - as a corporation does not have a physical body how can it have an intellect and therefore how can it own intellectual property?

Not claiming to be an expert on the law by any means, but I would suppose a company has intellectual rights due to individuals under contract who had been responsible for said intellectual content. Still, it doesn't mean a corporation is a person, but rather, it's a matter of legal contracts in the business structure.