The article in the url below is a recent editorial in the NYT that discusses “the rights of corporations” in relation to a case the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing:
“… the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season.”
Instead of deciding the case in terms of this narrow point of law, however, the Court decided to expand its consideration to include broader implications under the legal doctrine of “corporate personhood”:
“The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns -- a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.”
It would be interesting to see an editorial from the WSJ on the same case to see an alternative perspective (for an op-ed piece, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393250083568972.html), but it is clear that the NYT does not think the Court’s current view of corporate rights should be expanded. The NYT also thinks a narrow interpretation of a corporation’s rights represents a purer reflection of the original intent of the Constitution:
“John Marshall, the nation's greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as ''an artificial being, invisible, intangible,'' he wrote in 1819. ''Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.''”
In particular, there are strong arguments to be made that corporations are not the same as individuals in their ability to amass resources that can then be used to distort the political debate. As such, the editorial argues that, in areas of political speech in particular, the Court should be wary of expanding corporations’ Constitutional rights to allow these kinds of polemical statements to be made.
Take care
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
The Rights of Corporations
Editorial
623 words
623 words
22 September 2009
Late Edition - Final
30
For an article that highlights the broader implications of a change in the campaign finance law regarding corporations, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-11
