Corporate Personhood

In 1886, Santa Clara county lost a lawsuit against Southern Pacific railroad. In 1866, San Mateo county won a lawsuit against the railroad, requiring them to pay taxes. The California Supreme Court sided with the county, ordering the company to pay it's back taxes.

Corporate America, from this point, began one of the most well-executed legal coup d'état in history. Using a law created to protect black citizens from biased courts, the railroad took it's case to the Supreme Court. After the case was heard, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive and Court Reporter, issued the following head note:

"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."

The issue of corporate personhood was not involved in the case in the least.

The Court ruled that Santa Clara had illegally tried to tax the railroad for property that did not belong to it, and therefore ruled against the county.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure equality between all living citizens. Following the Civil War, in an attempt to make the dream of Democracy and Freedom a reality, the Constitution was amended, to ensure that all citizens, no matter their race or background, would be treated as equal citizens. Ironically, the 14th Amendment didn't apply, for a long time, to blacks, women, immigrants, or Native Americans. In fact, it primarily "protected" the corporation from independent communities, who would pass laws to protect local consumers, workers, businesses, and environments.

The headnote had no legal precedent, yet corporate lawyers took up the slogan, using "Corporations are Persons" to defend their "clients". The Supreme Court later cited the headnote in a ruling. While the headnote didn't have the force of law, the ruling did.

Corporations, legally, were now "Persons."

Today, we can see the dark omens that come from that ruling. Corporations now claim human rights and civil liberties that are often denied to human citizens:

They claim the First Amendment entitles them to lie to the public, and to finance and lobby politicians;
They claim the Fourth Amendment protects them from "illegal searches" from government agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and Consumer Protection Groups;
They claim the Fifth Amendment gives them a right to lie about past crimes, or hide knowledge of past crimes;
Finally, they claim the 14th Amendment right to overturn "discrimination" by communities who attempt to keep them out.

A corporation is a publicly created legal fiction, for the purpose of litigation and limited liability. As a corporation, stockholders are not considered "partners," and therefore, their personal property is not at risk. The corporation takes the liability, at the trade that the corporate entity itself may be brought to court.

It is not a person. There cannot be equal footing between a legal fiction and a human. Governments create corporations (in theory, anyway) to serve the public good: Creating jobs, goods, and services. Investors put their money into corporations because it protects them from liability, while giving them a good return.

But in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, we have created a superpower that dwells in our democratic nation. A powerful white male overclass, using the corporation as a weapon, has taken all power from the hands of the people.

What can we do about this?

Well, for one thing, in any capitalist system, those in power will find a way to keep their power, overturn regulations, and influence politics. The best solution is moving towards a system built on democratic empowerment and the common good, where capital is owned socially, by the people, rather than private individuals.

However, in the meantime, a solution seems to appear in the face of a Constitutional Amendment. We can reset the precedent and retake our "democracy," or what's left of it.

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

1: Corporations are not persons; they are, in fact, legal fictions, for the purpose of litigation and limited liability, and therefore, are not entitled to equal protection, nor to any civil rights or legal protections not specified;
2: The corporation will be confined to one business mission;
3: The corporation will be banned from owning other businesses or corporations;
4: The corporation will be banned from attempting to influence elections or public policy in any way, direct or indirect;
5: The primary purpose of a corporation is to serve the public good, through the creation of jobs, goods, and services.
6: To insure this, every 10 to 40 years following a corporations chartering, they will have to go before a jury of 12 persons, to show that they have acted in a socially responsible way and have promoted the public good. If this turns out not to be the case, the corporations charter will be revoked, and it's assets seized.

Is this perfect? No, of course not, and it won't solve every problem in the world. But it is the first step towards reclaiming our democracy and moving towards economic justice.

Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.

Health Care Reform

What to cover: Good parts of the bill; lack of a public option; opposition to the mandated buy-in; insurance company boondoggle; single-payer; Obama's presidency; dropping the subsidy for businesses buying insurance.

After Congressman Stupak finished grand-standing with pointless provisos on a woman's right to choose (federal money can't be spent on elective abortions already...), the massive, sweeping reform to American health care passed both the House and the Senate. It has been hailed by various progressive voices as the most important piece of social legislation since at least the 1960s, sometimes even compared to passing Social Security during the Great Depression.

Is it?

It does deal with some of the surface problems. Banning the insurance companies from dropping coverage for those who get sick seems to be common-sense compassion. Kids can stay on their parents plan until they're in their twenties. It creates pools for people with preexisting conditions, and big insurance can't place lifetime limits on your coverage. These make sense, and are needed reforms to our current system.

But there are two major issues I have with this legislation. One is the lack of a public option; the other is the mandated buy-in.

A good friend of mine, a local Republican/Campaign for Liberty activist, said that insurance companies couldn't make profit if they were forced to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be nice if that's what business they were in, but unfortunately, that's not profitable.

Then tell me this: Why the hell are we still dealing with them? This is the 21st century. By now, we should see health-care the same way we see food and shelter: As a basic human right that everyone deserves, no matter what. What business are these people in, then, if they aren't supposed to pay for the sick to receive treatment? What is so radical about taking the words "over 65" out of Medicare and letting anyone buy into it who wants to?

We have taken a social problem (lack of insurance) and made individuals pay for it. Then, as taxpayers, we pay vouchers to the working poor, now forced to purchase their own health care. And without a public option, all that money goes into the pockets of private insurance companies. As it was said in the International Socialist Review, this is the biggest boondoggle for capitalist America since the railroads in the 1870s.

And maybe hoping for a single-payer system off the bat is a bit idealistic. But in the end, what's so radical about wanting to cover every American?

Short of a public option, and with the mandated buy-in that hurts the working poor and serves as a boondoggle for the insurance companies, I don't know that I can say I support the new legislation.