A friend sent me Jack Welsh's editorial on the WSJ regarding a corporation being a person:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524823306803692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Here's my thoughts:
I’m no corporate or constitutional scholar (actually not a
scholar of anything), but for me this falls in to the category of “It just
don’t make no sense”. Isn’t kind of sad
that we need corporate scholars, constitution scholars, lawyers and courts to
tell us what a person it?
Can a corporation feel nationalism? Is a person born or is a person
incorporated? Does a person choose the
state they want to be incorporated in because that state has the most advantageous laws for a person? And, no matter which
state the person actually lives in, they are governed by the laws of the state
they choose to be incorporated in.
In our legal system a corporation is an entity, but it is
not a carbon based life form. It is an ink
and paper based life form. It is an “artificial
person” and not necessarily composed of the people who own it or work for it. Owners can change, employees can change, but
the corporation remains as a separate and intact entity. ( http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person2.htm
)
Important to note: the corporation takes on the liabilities
of carbon based life forms (people) who own it or work for it. It provides a shield or foil for the carbon
based life forms. I would guess that in
his history, Mr. Welch has taken advantage of this particular attribute of a
corporation. The corporation does not
love or cry. It feels no remorse. It does not learn from its experience, more
importantly its mistakes. The carbon
based people do (sometimes). Those same
people the Welchs point out who discover drug therapies to target cancer, who
build the heart valve, who work toward shared goals, who own shares in the
corporation are the first ones to run to the protection of the corporation when
things go awry – drug kills people, faulty heart valve, etc. It is no longer the people’s responsibility
or liability, it’s the corporation’s. Once
this has occurred, ask those people if there is a difference between the people
and the corporation. I’ll bet they have
a different perspective than what is in the Welchs’ article. I’ll bet he has.
While pointing out the good the people in a corporation may
create, the Welchs conveniently skip the problems and abuse corporations have
perpetrated on individuals and society– there are many, many examples that I
don’t need to go into. In my humble
opinion – within a corporation there is a group think or group conscious that
grows within the carbon based life forms (people). It is this group think or conscious that is a
primary component of the corporate entity.
Within this group think the perpetuation of the corporation becomes more
important than any carbon based person – employee, customer or innocent
bystander. There is something about the
group think or group conscious (institutional conscious) that is created and
cultivated in the environment of the corporation that has often lead to an
action that is harmful to other individuals or society. My guess is that if you queried the people
who make up the corporation when a harmful act is carried out they would not
have taken the action on an individual basis.
It appears (to me) that the institutional conscious fosters an
environment where bad people can do bad things, and good people regularly do
things they would probably consider bad outside of the institutional conscious.
IMHO – the Welchs present a “cute”, “feel good” proposition,
but go no-where near touching the real issues of corporate personhood. I would have expected more from Jack. Two words that he missed come to mind –
accountability and responsibility. His conclusion – “when
people say that corporations aren't people, what they really want to say is,
"Business is evil."” This is
not what I want to say.
I’m not saying that corporations and business don’t do good
things. Nor am I saying that they are
evil. However, I do think that (1) a
corporation is not a person, not even an artificial person (2) a corporation is
not entitled to the same rights and protections of a carbon based person (3)
carbon based persons have the right and should expect their government to
protect them from the corporations running amok (3) carbon based persons have
the right and should expect owners and employees of corporations to be held
liable for actions that harm others or prevent others life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
To bring this around to campaign finance… If, as the Welchs suggest, the people at the
heart of corporations are so proud of it and well meaning, why can’t we know
the people (and other corporations) who are behind corporate political
donations. It seems from their article
that people who make up corporations and the corporations themselves are so
altruistic they would be happy to share with the world the actual carbon based
life forms (and other corporations) behind the political activities.
Presently in our country, it appears that a corporation is
an artificial person. It is afforded the
same rights and freedoms as a carbon based person. I personally do not believe that should be
the law of the land. I’ll end with these
questions – Can a corporation say and commit to the pledge of allegiance? Can a corporation say a prayer? Do corporations dream of golden sheep?
“It just don’t make no sense”. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to get it.
Jefferson was a critic of the monopolizing of economic power
by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third
president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no
country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.”
I think he got “it”.
(Note1: I did come up with that last question on my own, but when I googled it I found this: http://www.partisans.org/
