Corporations and legal personhood.

I have seen a LARGE number of misunderstandings on this topic and I think a little clarification is important.  The first step of that clarification is to define the relevant terms.

First of all  Corporation

A corporation is a legal personality, usually used to conduct business. Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the shareholders that invest their capital and the employees who contribute their labour. People work together in corporations to produce. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, for their goods and services, for the value of the pensions, for economic growth and social development.

The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation fails, shareholders will lose their money, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors. This rule is called limited liability, and it is why corporations end with "Ltd." (or some variant like "Inc." and "plc"). In the words of British judge, Walton J, a company is...

"...only a juristic figment of the imagination, lacking both a body to be kicked and a soul to be damned."^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

A legal person, also called juridical person or juristic person, is a legal entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if they were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own. ^{[1] [2]} This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This concept is separate from and should not be confused with limited liability or the joint stock principle.^[3]. Also note that basic rights (like the rights to free speech and due process of law) do not necessarily follow from legal personhood. A legal person is sometimes called an artificial person or legal entity (although the latter is sometimes understood to include natural persons as well). Although the concept of a legal person is more central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, it is also found in virtually every legal system. ^[4]

In England and the United States, the use of this terminology does not mean that legal persons are considered human beings. It is simply a "technical legal meaning" in which "a 'person' is any subject of legal rights and duties."^[5] Because these entities may have legal rights and duties, they are considered 'legal persons' to distinguish them from natural persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person

Critical components of these definitions are..

r     Corporations are people; people make every decision for every action of every corporation. They are also private property, belonging to a group of shareholders.

r     There are multiple types of corporations for a myriad of purposes, including government. Most Municipalities and many states are registered corporations. One can not generalize about a specific purpose of a corporation because every corporation has a unique purpose

r     Corporation are a legal enitity created to limit risk to encourage investment. Without this limit on risk capital for research and development of any aspect of modern life is not possible.

r     Extensions of civil rights to corporations are extensions of the shareholder’s civil rights; so any attack on those rights is a direct attack on the civil and property rights of the  shareholders.

So let us look at the history of corporate person hood and the attacks on the civil and property rights of shareholders

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/edwards_morgan_corporate.html

Once corporations had jumped the constitutional line from the government side to the people side, their lawyers proceeded to pursue the Bill of Rights through more Supreme Court cases. As mentioned above,

 in 1893 they were assured 5th Amendment protection of due process.

In 1906 they got 4th Amendment search and seizure protection (Hale v. Henkel). In 1922 they got the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon), and a regulatory law was deemed to be a "takings."

In 1936 (Grosjean v. American Press Co.) and 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) they started getting First Amendment protections

All of which were done to allow corporations to function on behalf of their shareholders, and not of the rights extended were beyond the individual rights of the shareholders.  Should corporation sue and be sued? Should they, as assets of individuals who are protected from governmental taking, not also be so protected?

                ……………------------………………………….

In 1976 the Supreme Court determined in Buckley v. Valeo that money spent for political purposes is equal to exercising free speech, and since "corporate persons" have First Amendment rights, they can contribute as much money as they want to overturn ballot initiatives or referenda (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti).

A right that shareholders individually could enforce individually and seperately

                ……………------------………………………….

Just as sharecropping and the company store once kept people trapped in permanently subservient production roles, now the International Monetary Fund and World Bank's structural adjustment programs keep entire countries in permanent debt, the world's poorest people forced to feed interest payments to the world's richest while their own families go hungry.

The corporations made capital available to “the world’s poorest” so is repayment of the debt not reasonable, or should the loans be gifts by default.  If the poorest wanted charity they should have made that clear; remember charity is never free either. 

                ……………------------………………………….

Clearly there is a movement of left wingers like Ralph Nader to abolish “corporate Personhood”.

The purpose varies, but primarily  seems to be….

A first step toward a process of eliminating corporations

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Controlling_Corporations/Challenge_Corp_Personhood.html

A step toward reducing the differences in wealth, and making the rich less rich

http://www.votenader.org/issues/corporate-personhood/

Reducing the political impact of corporations

http://www.votenader.org/issues/corporate-personhood/

A means to “fire up” the progressive movement which has little or no stake in the current campaigns

http://www.alternet.org/story/38406/?page=2&ses=55a01e7b25c191034279c2e66497ad81

The underlying motive, as far as I can see is to attack property rights, and to transfer wealth from the wealthy to the poor.  I would be nice, and heck even ethical if the loony Left would admit that in the beginning, but that would be far to clear. America would not accept such a socialist agenda and they know it.

Without a question this movement is a socialist agenda; it is anti-American and it’ supporters do not belong in America. Currently they enjoy all the benefits of the capital creation of corporations. THEY ARE HYPOCRITES in the very basic sense of the term unless they are willing to move to a nation without corporations.   I bet they all own and contribute to corporations.