TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

I won’t reprise the essay referred to in my preceding post, by which Lawrence Lessig presents his view of our current problems (much of which I agree with, including his conclusion that the “conservative” Roberts Supreme Court five-Justice bloc has acted with considerable activism in overturning centuries of law-making, in a manner that cannot be seen as consistent with any “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, and that fruits and prospects of such activism are likely to frustrate further legislative attempts at fixes).

While I agree with Lessig’s call for a movement for the Several States to convene a Constitutional Convention, let me note that his analysis certainly has some serious short-comings and blind spots. In my view:

(1) Lessig completely
misses the real root of corruption, which is the grant by states to corporation owners of legal entity status in which owners had no liability for acts of the corporation (unless they specifically directed such acts), which grant was initially jealously guarded and carefully
restricted. The trickle from this hole in the dike became a flood,
as wealthy investors – eager to fund risky businesses that might give
them great profits while shifting risks to unconsenting third parties –
pressured state lawmakers for a snowballing liberalization – which saw the removal of limits on corporate purposes, corporate life, and corporate ability to own other corporations. As I have discussed repeatedly, the result of the multiplication of
activities, power and negative impacts of limited liability corporations (including their
successful pressuring of courts to eliminate common law tort doctrines that once strongly
protected the rights of property owners, in favor of a social utility balancing) has been a corresponding rise
in demands by citizens that law-makers act to constrain corporate activities, which in turn has produced a steadily escalation in the fight over the wheel of government.

(2) As a
result of this oversight, Lessig fails to consider (i) whether the
states can provide any check on corporate influence via their power to
condition the grant of incorporation/foreign corporation status (short
of a Constitutional Amendment eliminating corporate “personhood” for
civi rights purposes), instead suggesting that Congress might insist
that corporations engaged in interstate commerce be federally
incorporated and limited and (ii) whether states and federal
governments might regulate BETTER by easing the regulation of
partnerships, similar associations and corporation that have unlimited
liability, and whose owners have direct incentives to make sure
their executives do not engage the business in activities that generate
a significant risk of liaibilty to others

(3)
Lessig ignores that the reason corporations and labor pour money into buying
favor in Washington is because the federal government is too busy
selling favors, and such investments pay off – particularly where a
single party gains monopoly control over the pork spigots. Lessig seems blind to considerations of federalism and limited
government, in favor of the premise that anything the people in Congress assembled want to do is okay, as long wealthy corporations aren’t able to spend money on swaying the election of Congresscritters or buying votes, and if retired Congresscritters are not allowed to pasture too close to Congress..

(4)  As a result, Lessig
fails whether rent-seeking can be checked in part by restoring the once vital
check and balance provided by a vibrant role of states under the
originally envisioned federal system. For the purposes of restoring power to states, various conservatives have recently been suggesting (i) a reinvigoration of the moribund Tenth Amendment,
which states that non-delegated powers are reserved to the states and
the people (the Supreme Court assisted the federal government in
killing this part of the Bill of Rights via expansive interpretations
of the authority of Congress under the general welfare clause, the
Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment) and (ii) repeal the requirement of direct elections of Senators under the 17th Amendment, which is argued to have better enabled election pandering and influence by corporations and by national parties.

(5) Finally, Lessig misses that the real reason why the conservative block on the
Roberts Court struck down limits on direct corporate spending on
political campaigns
(speech is wide open; direct donations to campaigns remain limited, but
will eventually fall on the corporations=persons doctrine) is that the Supreme Court had gradually allowed a two-part corporate speech structure to grow, with speech by “media” corporations being unlimited
(“freedom of the press” getting a separate mention in the First
Amendment), but political speech by other corporations being heavily
regulated by Congress.

This very imbalanced structure was long resented
by the right, due to the perception that the dull, corporate,
conglomerate”MSM” had been “captured” by ideological enemies on the
left. Resentments began to run the other way with the establishment of
FOX and various corporate-funded “thinktank” groups by the right (which seems heavily invested in the idea #CorpSpeak without, apparently, making any examination of the premises that inanimate legal fictions much different from other human associations have rights to speak and influence to government), but the Roberts court felt that the influence of the “liberal” corporate media was still too strong, and decided simply to do its best to bring down the entire edifice of “media speech” versus #CorpSpeak distinctions.
The Roberts Court appears to have been too timid or incurious to
address the fundamental problems relating to speech by inanimate
institutions with far greater power and far less community check than
individuals, and so blinked at that opportunity, instead opting for
the far lesser but still extremely activist step of taking a demolition
ball to legal restrictions on competition in the flow of ideas from corporations.

For the curious reader, I note again my preceding posts on  corporate “free speech”.

Those who want to get further stirred up might want to give another
listen to the new music video Anthem of what our Founding Fathers said
to King George:  It’s Too Late to Apologize.

Lessig doesn’ expressly say it, but we also need to rein in the “self-evident”, “unalienable rights” of all corporations

Actually, the last quip in the title are my words, not Lessig’s.

Last week, I noted Harvard law prof Lawrence Lessig’s earlier rebuttal to Glenn Greenwald regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to overthrow centuries of American law and jurisprudence on the rights of corporations and to enshrine corporations – legal fictions created by states and with powers very severely restricted at the time the Constitution was negotiated and ratified by Americans who had recently rebelled against British company-structured colonies and monopolies – as entitled to “speech” under the Bill of Rights on the same basis as men, and made the following observation:

As an aside, other, non-corporation forms of property that had real human bodies – such as slaves – were clearly NOT afforded Constitutional rights of any sort at the time of the Revolution/Bill of Rights; freed slaves as they became citizens and non-citizen Chinese coolies received Constitutional protection ONLY when the Fourteenth Amendment was expressly adopted to extend “privileges and immunities” to citizens and “due process” and “equal protection” to “persons”.

It was this reference to “persons” that smart/prevaricating lawyers for extremely influential railroad corporations were able to persuade a sympathetic Supreme Court – in unargued dicta by a Justice and recorded in headnotes by a Court’s Reporter who were both former railroad lawyers – to the effect that either (i) the 14th Amendment-adopting states had all intended to mean that it would be the federal government, and not the states creating corporations or giving them permission to do business in-state, who would determine whether domestic or out-of-state corporations received “equal” protection of state laws as did citizens or (ii) that such was the hidden purpose of some railroad-friendly drafters of the Amendment, and that such hidden purpose should govern in interpreting the Amendment.

Is there any surprise that most of the subsequent 14th amendment case law is about how monied corporations vigorously pursued and advanced their interests, while blacks and foreign residents continued to get short shrift (“separate but equal”) from unconcerned federal judges?

Now, the thoughtful and highly regarded  Lawrence Lessig has written a must-read article in The Nation; “How to Get Our Democracy Back; If You Want Change, You Have to Change Congress” (February 3; February 22 print edition).

I won’t reprise the essay here — I have a few comments on what I see as serious shortcomings and blind spots in Lessig’s analysis, but the draft of these grows long (like my aside above) – rent-seeking; corporations; religion; limited liability; Constitution, speech, states, federalism – so I will post them separately.

Lessig’s article is a key starting point and long enough, though I will advise/remind the curious reader of my preceding posts on  corporate “free speech”..

In calling for amendments to the Constitution, Lessig joins others that have come to the same conclusion years ago, such as “whacko”, snivelling local communities/enviro-commie fascists (snark!) seeking to control the impacts of large multinational corporations on local communities and resources, and some state-righters seeking to breathe some meaning back into the Tenth Amendment and the moribound body of federalism. More on this later.

Those who want to get further stirred up might want to give another listen to the new music video Anthem of what our Founding Fathers said to King George:  It’s Too Late to Apologize.

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, 1816 [note: this may be a spurious quote.]

“Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

—Grover Cleveland, 1888

As an aid to readers who want a deeper background on the path that brought us to the latest Supreme Court “free speech” decision that further enthrones corporations over individuals, I’d like to start posting various materials that I’ve  run across. The first is the essay below by Michael P. Byron, a Vietnam-era Navy vet who teaches Political Science at CSU San Marcos, as well as at Palomar, Mira Costa, and Mesa Colleges in San Diego.. He is the author of two books on the dynamics of the collapse of societies and was the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 49th Congressional District in 2002 and 2004. I reprint the essay in full, with Mike`s permission (any bolding or brackets are mine).

Jefferson Was Right 05/24/03

Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations. Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power. [Such an amendment would have applied only to the federal government; Jefferson was unsuccessful with this proposed item largely because many states already had already enacted very restrictive company laws.] A few years after Jefferson’s unsuccessful attempt to incorporate this amendment into the Bill of Rights, the fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall, unilaterally asserted the Court’s right to judicial review in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In practice this meant that the Supreme Court would have sole and unchecked power to determine what the Constitution meant. Jefferson was aghast. His fear lay in the knowledge that an unelected branch of government, one which is not subject to the will of the citizens, and is effectively immune from check by the two elected branches of government (Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached—none have ever been convicted and removed) was now solely responsible for determining the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution, and hence the very nature of our political system, was now in the hands of an un-elected and effectively uncontrollable body. “The Constitution has become a thing of wax to be molded as the Court sees fit” Jefferson lamented. In 1886 Jefferson’s twin Constitutional nightmares collided in a train wreck which has effectively derailed true democracy in this nation and indeed across the globe as other nations have either copied our unfortunate example, or have fallen under the dominion of our multinational corporations—or both.. The precipitating event was the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case is cited to the present day as having conferred the status of “natural” as opposed to “artificial” personhood upon American corporations. In fact the Supreme Court declined to rule on the issue. J.C. Bancroft Davis, the Clerk of the Court, an attorney, who curiously was also a former railroad company PRESIDENT, used his position to simply write this conclusion into the head notes which summarized the case. Ever since this fateful event; this sleight-of-hand rewriting of the Constitution, corporations have had the status of “actual” persons whose rights are fully protected by the Constitution. It was a coup against democracy which succeeded because there were no real external checks and balances on the Court, and because the Court itself chose not to act to repudiate Davis’ rewriting of the Constitution. The thing stood. Precedent was established. Jefferson’s “thing of wax” nightmare had come to pass.

[Ed: Allow me to explain briefly the device of the perversion wrought by the Supreme Court, which Byron fails to address. Corporations – which are essentially all creatures of the states, and not the federal government – received Constitutional “personhood” status was through the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Amendment profoundly altered the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights had restricted the federal government’s authority against states and citizens, but did not regulate the relationship between states and their own citizens (and citizens of other states). But the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment, with the purpose of protecting freed slaves, directly limited the authority of state governments over their own citizens via the Privileges and Immunities clause (essentially making the Bill of Rights binding on the states as well); in addition, for the purpose of protecting both citizens and noncitizens (such as the many Chinese in California), the Equal Protection clause mandated that all persons be given the equal protection of each state’s laws. It is this clause that the extremely powerful and wealthy railroad companies – creatures of states – managed to turn into a weapon of the federal government against states, by the proposition that corporations, being recognized as artificial “persons” having a legal status independent of their shareholders, should also be treated as “persons” with Constitutional rights under the the Fourteenth Amendment. The subsequent case history of the Equal Protection clauses show a few cases regarding freed slave and minorities, with federal courts permitting states to treat minorities very shabbily, but a vast majority of cases brought by railroads and other corporations, strictly protecting corporations from unequal treatment..]

Consider the implications: Actual flesh and blood persons are indeed all roughly equal in overall attributes. But a corporation can possess MILLIONS of times greater resources than does any “natural” person, or even a group of such persons. Neither labor unions, nor any other category of “special interest” group possesses this attribute of personhood and so they too are fundamentally and intrinsically unable to compete against corporate “persons.” To make a long and sad story short: The concentrated power of corporate persons has overwhelmed our democratic system. The unsound decisions of our unchecked and unbalanced Supreme Court have handed the “keys to the Kingdom” over to our corporate overlords. An analogy with an AIDS infection is instructive: After 1886, our democratic “immune system” resisted Davis’ corporate personhood infection of our national body politic by deploying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Progressive Movement, the Labor Movement, and the New Deal. All of these bought time. But now, in the era of global mega-corporations, after a long struggle, our “democratic immune system” is finally being overwhelmed. Democracy, rule of, by, and for the people, is dying in America. Contemporary America is a nation almost wholly under the dominion of plutocratically wealthy, corporate quarterly-profit über alles overlords. A seamless web of corporate power connects our multinational corporations with our mass media—now almost wholly owned by a handful of mega-corporations. This military-industrial-media complex largely determines which politicians will and will not get elected. Thus they control the government. They control access to money as well as determine how a candidate will be presented to the viewers. The very policies that our “elected” officials are “allowed” to espouse are rigorously circumscribed: Remember Clinton’s national healthcare proposals? Our media will never tell us that every other developed nation on Earth has universal health care for their citizens. Arguably, our corporate media has seen to it that the average American is as brainwashed as is say, the average citizen of North Korea. Our primary role in this atrocious system is simply to consume. We are consumers, corporate subjects, not citizens. Under this materialistic system our lives are devoid of deep meaning as we are conditioned to work ever harder and go ever deeper in debt to accumulate ever more useless junk as though if we just piled up enough of this crap we would somehow, magically, become happy. What is to be done? Let’s open our eyes and admit that the emperor has no clothes. Let’s admit that our democratic, constitutional, system was derailed more than a century ago. Until we return power to the hands of flesh and blood citizens EXCLUSIVELY, until corporations are summarily striped of “personhood”, until this legal obscenity is abolished, we can have no real freedom, democracy cannot flourish. Furthermore, to ensure that the will of the people is respected and reigns supreme, all members of our federal judiciary must face periodic reelection by the citizens—just as is the case for our judiciary here in California. Until and unless these things come to pass we cannot be a free people. Because we are fundamentally NOT a free people, because our ability to act and to build freely upon our inspirations is constrained by corporate forces beyond our present control, we cannot live up to our full potentials as human beings. Once these goals are accomplished there shall be such an explosion of innovation in economic and political and scientific entrepreneurship as to make Periclean Athens seem timid. It’s up to each of us to act NOW. Freedom itself hangs in the balance.

There’s a nice little music video out – just released by a speciality history curriiculum publishing firm – with a hsitory lesson that really seems to be hitting a chord with the growing chorus of people who are upset with government (including Glenn Reynolds, Moe Lane and some others – I expect the left to catch on as well).

It’s called “Too Late to Apologize: a Declaration“, and stars Thomas Jefferson as lead vocalist/keyboardist, John Hancock, John Adams, Sam Adams, Benjamin Franklin on guitar and King George.

I love it, and I’s sure you’ll like it too.

Maybe some stirred up watchers can suggest some lyric tweaks to bring this up to date for our latest usurpers? There are plenty of good targets, such as:

• our runaway federal government and the politicians who pander to us and distract us with wars & shallow, divisive political drama, while spreading pork and legislative & regulatory largess to favored corporations,
• the powerful corporations (including our corporate “news” conglomerates) that our Founders were determined to oppose – but
  which hijacked the 14th Amendment to trump local/states rights and become “persons” with unalienable rights
  (now even under the Bill of Rights!), and the
  Supreme Court that has arrogated to itself the right to turn the
  Constitution into whatever they say it means, thus aiding both a
  grasping central government and the corporate-tied elites who direct it.

Without further ado, here’s the video! (lyrics below)

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg:650:0]

Lyrics:

Halfway across the globe
And we’re standing on new ground
Screaming ‘cross the waves
You can’t hear a sound
There’s no fair trials, no trade, no liberties
No tea
We’ve colonized America; we won’t stand for tyranny,
Oh king

And it’s too late to apologize
It’s too late
I said it’s too late to apologize
It’s too late

We’ve paid your foolish tax, read the acts
And they just won’t do
We want to make it clear, we believe this much is true
All men were created with certain

Unalienable rights
Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
Of happiness

And it’s too late to apologize
It’s too late
I said It’s too late to apologize
It’s too late

It’s too late to apologize
It’s too late
I said it’s too late apologize
It’s too late

I said it’s too late to apologize, yeah
It’s too late
I said it’s too late to apologize, yeah

Halfway across the globe
And we’re standing on new ground

Below is another handy summary of my Constitutional arguments against #CorpSpeak and #politicsInc (Twiter hashtags, for those of you who may be unfamiliar with them), copied from another comment thread at Volokh Conspiracy.

Readers should not forget that it is the state grant of limited liability that – as I have discussed in many posts – lies at the root of our burgeoning fights over government and public distrust (extending even to my quaint pet enviro concerns), Corporations are divorced from their owners, who have been given a grant of limited liability for the risks they shift to society, a cloak of anonymity by which they can behave irresponsibility (with little concerns greater than what provides the largest profits and bonuses) and can seek favors from government, as well as unlimited lives and deep pockets to make persistent efforts to corrupt.

Yes, I may be repeating myself, but core libertarian concerns are at stake. Here are my comments, with a few slight tweaks:

TokyoTom says:

February 4, 2010, 11:45 pm

[Note: Hope the obvious snark isn`t too confusing; some simple thoughts on an alternative view are at bottom.]

An obviously deluded Bill Gates apparently:

• has become a global warming/carbon cultist and/or
• has been suckered by carbon-trading swindlers or modern-day sellers of snake oil serums, and/or
• has a plan to get even more rich by cornering the market on climate moderation services, in part through abusively seeking patents on techniques to geo-engineer the stratosphere.

An article at “Science“, the propaganda arm of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, revealed on January 26 that Gates has been funding “atmospheric scientist” Ken Caldeira and others over the past three years, out of his own pocket and to the tune of $4.5 million. Caldeira was recently in the news in connection with Steven Levitt’s and Stephen Dubner’s latest Freakonomics book, which showed that even in the unlikely even that it turns out that puny mankind actually influences the climate, that wizbang mankind has a simple and easy solution. Gates, it turns out, is co-conspirator in Intellectual Ventures, the venture started by genius Nathan Myhrvold, whom is also prominently referred to in Freakonomics. Apparently, Intellectual Ventures has already been busy filing patent applications.

It`s not entirely clear what Gates, Myhrvold, Caldeira, Levitt and Dubner are up to, but since faithful readers at LvMI all know that climate change simply isn`t happening, whatever it is, it can`t be any good, can it? Sure, Gates and Myhvold are privately funding science, but aren`t they really simply creaming information off of the public investment in climate research, while seeking monopoly gains through crackpot geoengineering schemes that they hope their elite friends in our Big Brother government will fund via a massive, coercive use of tax dollars? And isn`t this exactly the reason why Levitt and Dubner, as front men, have been softening up the public for this type of soaking?

[If there`s going to be any large-scale geoengineering, LvMI readers all hope it will be conducted in a purely private manner, as suggested by our own thinking men, who have been in the forefront on intelligent schemes for man to cool the planet (by the atmospheric use of atom bombs to induce a mild nuclear winter).]

Here are a few excerpts for time-pressed readers, including some insightful remarks in the comments by a reader who is up to Gates`s tricks, and some possible further misdirection by Caldeira:

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates has been supporting a wide array of research on geoengineering since 2007, ScienceInsider has learned. The world’s richest man has provided at least $4.5 million of his own money over 3 years for the study of methods that could alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, techniques to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, and brighten ocean clouds. …

Caldeira and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada have been in charge of deciding how to dispense the money ….

Recipients of the funding include Armand Neukermans, an inventor based in Silicon Valley who is working with colleagues to design spray systems for the marine clouds, and students and scientists working for Keith and Caldeira. Funding has also helped support scientific meetings in geoengineering in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Edinburgh, Scotland, and aeronautics research related to altering the stratosphere.

There are other grantees, Keith says, but he declined to identify them or say why. “This is like a little private funding agency,” he says, though he says they plan to release more information.

Gates has shown interest in geoengineering research before. He is an investor in Intellectual Ventures, a Seattle, Washington–area firm that pursues inventions and has applied for patents on techniques to geoengineer the stratosphere. Along with officials from that organization, Gates applied for a patent in 2008 to sap hurricanes of their strength by mixing surface and deep ocean water.

What’s his ultimate goal? Gates “views geoengineering as a way to buy time but it’s not a solution to the problem” of climate change, says spokesperson John Pinette. “Bill views this as an important avenue for research—among many others, including new forms of clean energy.” (Pinette works for BCG3, a think-tank type firm Gates started last year which has no apparent role thus far in supporting geoengineering.) “Scientific and technological advances are making it possible to solve big, complicated problems like never before,” writes Gates on the Web site of the Gates Foundation, which is also not involved in the geoengineering work.

Here’s an insightful comment by a level-headed reader:

Further to my four preceding posts, I copy below a further comment that I left on a thread at The Volokh Conspiracy, which I think summarizes the core Constitutional issue:

TokyoTom says:

February 3, 2010, 12:32 pm

PR.Watch.org succinctly summarizes:

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to the same free speech and political rights as American citizens, Murray Hill, Inc., a public relations and advertising firm in Maryland has announced that it intends to run for Congress in Maryland’s 8th Congressional district. In an undated press release
posted on the company’s Web site, Murray Hill says, “Until now,
corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and
influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to
an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and
run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill states that it plans on spending
“top dollar” to protect its investment in government, adding, “We
bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” The company
plans to run as a Republican in the primary, and announced that it will
run an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even
third. Murray Hill will be the first corporation to test the Supreme
Court’s new ruling conferring political free speech rights on
corporations. Murray Hill has designated a human to fill out the
necessary forms to apply for its run for office, and it’s political
slogan is “Corporations are people too!” It has started a Facebook page and says it plans on using automated robo-calls, “astroturf” lobbying, and computer-generated avatars to win over voters.

More here: http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html

here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/corporate-persons-get-sho_b_440468.html

here: http://www.murrayhillweb.com/new_day/index.html

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter (with links to various TV, radio appearances)

Further to my preceding posts on corporations and free speech, I invite others to read this semi-serious piece in Truthout that examines the implications of the United Citizens vs. FEC decision:

“Personal Corporatehood: Coping With the Reason Divided of Citizens United”

The author, Randall Amster suggests that in the wake of the latest Supreme Court case, ALL citizens ought to abandon personal responsibility and liability and incorporate themselves. Amster is a J.D., Ph.D., teaches peace studies at Prescott College, and is executive director of the Peace & Justice Studies
Association.

I quote liberally (emphasis added):

There’s great consternation brewing over the recent Supreme Court
decision that cements and extends the misbegotten logic of “corporate
personhood,” and rightly so. Surely, one of the most farcical and
tortuous doctrines ever established in our system of jurisprudence,
this conflated concept has drawn the ire of (small-d) democrats at
least as far back as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1816, “I hope we
shall … crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial
of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” …

Still, the notion of “corporate personhood” remains
something of a misnomer. In our system, as now expanded by the Supreme
Court, corporations actually enjoy more rights than individuals do in
many ways. To wit: liability shields, rights of transfer, political
access and influence, subsidies, laissez-faire regulation, freedom of
movement, self-determination, self-governance, tax breaks etc. In
particular, when it comes to political speech, corporations are now
essentially unfettered in their freedom, something that we mere mortals
have yet to fully secure. Consider the language of the court’s recent
ruling: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress
from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for
simply engaging in political speech.” …

President Obama called the decision “a major victory
for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the
other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in
Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” What wasn’t
immediately clear is whether he intended this as a lamentation or a
mere observation of political reality. Either way, he was in essence
stating a working fact, namely that whatever shards of democracy and
the “will of the people” had existed up to now, the pretense is all but
gone and corporations will openly run the show. I suppose this has the
virtue, in any event, of being a more honest representation of how
things actually transpire. The question is where things will go now
that this critical threshold has been crossed.

Most likely, this ruling is a harbinger of further
extensions of corporate rights and powers. A broad mandate and a
willing court will impel corporations to take on even more of the
qualities ordinarily associated with individuals, as noted in the
SCOTUS blog’s analysis of the decision: “It is not too much to expect
that lawyers for corporate America may well be looking to explore the
outer possibilities of their clients’ ‘personhood’ and new-found
constitutional equality.”[link added] There previously had existed a founding
principle that “natural persons” and “artificial persons” were separate
and distinct entities under the law, with the former holding historical
priority in our constitutional framework. By now, that distinction has
been blurred to such an extent as to be effectively meaningless, as
evidenced by a 2008 Federal District Court ruling in which it was
proclaimed by the judge that “Blackwater is a person….”

If Blackwater is a person, I want out. Indeed, this
suggests a strategy that “natural persons” might take in embracing the
implications of this unrestricted corporate world. If a corporation can
become a person, then by implication a person can become a corporation.
I am thus advocating a new doctrine of “personal corporatehood,” in
which we should all avail ourselves of the enhanced rights granted to
“artificial persons” in our system. People should begin taking steps to
incorporate themselves immediately. …

Just imagine the benefits. When someone asks you for
a favor, you can off-puttingly reply, “I have to check with my board of
directors at next month’s meeting; someone will get back to you then.”
When you want to meet with your Congressperson on matters you feel
strongly about, the receptionist will announce, “Senator, a corporation
is here to see you,” which will likely get you instant access. If you
go public, you can sell shares in yourself and make a tidy sum (just be
sure to retain a controlling interest). If someone irritates you or has
something you want, you can likely get the Marines sent in to deal with
them. You can avoid having to appear personally at court hearings,
sending your hired-gun attorney instead. And you can’t be thrown in
jail, since a corporation itself cannot be imprisoned. See?

At the end of the day, we “natural persons” can try
and fight city hall on this one, or we can get in the game and embrace
the benefits of artificiality. In a world of surfaces, where
profiteering masks as politics and gerrymandering as justice, this may
well be the best of all strategies for survival.

Amster is pretty much right in his discussion of the now rather superior rights that corporations have over individuals. While we can`t really abandon our individual identities, by incorporating we can shield assets by limiting liability and maybe, even double or triple our vote, if courts follow their logic and acknowledge that voting is simply a form of speech.

Or we could find ways to step back from the Alice in Wonderland nonsense that creeping corporatism and “conservative” Supreme Court justices have led us to.

Further to my preceding post on speech and corporations, I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig`s insightful short piece, “The Principled and Pure Court? A Reply to Glenn Greenwald” (HuffPo, January 27).

For those who haven`t seen it yet, I take the liberty of quoting liberally (emphasis added):

Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald
is just about the most persistent and effective critic of money in
politics today. He is among the least starry-eyed reporters studying
Congress. But his essay defending the Court’s judgment in Citizens United would have been better had he sprinkled a bit of the skepticism he has for Congress on the words penned by the Court….

The First Amendment, Greenwald tells us, is an absolute. It applies
not to “persons”; it “simply bans Congress from making any laws
abridging freedom of speech.” This law plainly banned these entities —
whether persons or not — from a freedom of speech. Ergo, this law is,
and should have been found to be, unconstitutional.

Sounds good. Sounds principled. Sounds refreshingly different from
anything else that happens within the reach of DC (i.e., good and
principled).

But apply that same test to the following (not so hypothetical) free
speech case: A bunch of doctors practice in family planning clinics.
The government issues a rule that says certain doctors in certain
clinics are not allowed to discuss abortion as a method of family
planning. They can talk about abstinence. Or condoms. But they are not
allowed to advise their pregnant patients that they have the liberty to
abort their fetus.

Sounds like — under the First Amendment Greenwald describes — a
simple case. Whether or not doctors are persons (and at least some are
just mere mortals), they should have the freedom to speak. Advising
someone about a legal medical procedure is among the core freedoms one
would expect a Free Speech Clause to serve.

Yet in 1991, in an opinion by Chief Justice Robert’s former boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in the case of Rust v. Sullivan,
the Court found no First Amendment problem at all with the government’s
restriction on doctors’ speech. Indeed, it wasn’t even a difficult case
according to the Court (“no question but that the statutory prohibition
contained in § 1008 is constitutional.”)

Why? How? Well the doctors at issue worked in family planning
clinics that had received at least some of their funds from the
government. And in exchange for that benefit, the government was free
to gag the doctors however it wished. The doctors were free of course
to work in a family planning clinic not funded at all by the government
(for of course, there are plenty of those) (that’s a joke). But so long
as the doctors take this benefit from the government, they’ve got to
live by the rules of the government, at least so long as those rules
serve some legitimate state end.

So how is this case related to Citizens United? For the law wasn’t
applying exclusively to entities that had received something from the
government. It was applying to all corporations.

But of course, corporations do receive a gift from the government.
The government limits the legal liability of investors in that
corporation in exchange for their risking their capital to spur
innovation and growth. That benefit is significant. And the First
Amendment question is whether in granting that benefit, the state would
be free to limit the political advocacy that corporations engage in.

It seems astonishing to imagine the state couldn’t. State law has
historically had wide freedoms to condition the corporate form as they
wished. This fact has led some, including my colleague, Sina Kian, to
argue that Citizens United is less than people think. That the decision
notwithstanding, states could build this limit into their corporate
charters. Or that maybe even Congress could induce states to do the
same. The question then would be the reason the government had for
demanding the entity give up this liberty in exchange for the corporate
form. Traditionally, the burden of that question is the easiest for the
government to meet — is there any state interest at all? In Rust, the
interest was that that government didn’t like abortion.

But I agree with Greenwald that there is something unseemly in the
idea that the government could restrict the speech of a class because
it doesn’t like the speech of that class.

Yet this is the most confused part of the commentary (and reaction)
of most to this kind of regulation. If the government’s reason for
silencing corporations is that they don’t like what corporations would
say — if it thinks, for example, that it would be too Republican, or
too pro-business — then that’s got to be a terrible reason for the
regulation, and we all ought to support a decision that strikes a law
so inspired.

That, however, is not the only, or the best, justification behind
the regulations at issue in Citizens United. Those rules not about
suppressing a point of view. They’re about avoiding a kind of
dependency that undermines trust in our government. The concentrated,
and tacitly, coordinated efforts by large and powerful economic
entities — made large and powerful in part because of the gift of
immunity given by the state — could certainly help lead many to
believe “money is buying results” in Congress. Avoiding that belief —
just like avoiding the belief that money bought results on the Supreme
Court — has got to be an important and valid interest of the state.

If the Court really means to say that entities that fund or create
other entities can’t limit the power of those entities to speak — so
the government can’t stop doctors from talking about abortion, or the
IRS can’t stop non-profits from talking about politics — then we
really have crossed a Bladerunner line. For that conclusion really does
mean that these entities were “created with certain unalienable
rights,” even though they were created by a pretty pathetic creator —
the state.

My point is not that the state’s power to condition should be
unlimited. The point instead is that it’s not so simple, or absolute,
as Greenwald would have it. And given the true complexity of these
evolving and complicated doctrines, it is certainly fair to be critical
in the extreme of this decision by the Court, favoring speech that most
believe it naturally likes (unlike abortion-speak), in a decision that
ignores the judgment of Congress about the conditions under which the
integrity of that body, or any election, proceeds.

It seems to me that Lessig doesn`t go far enough, in questioning as I have all of the negative consequences of the state grant of limited liability to the owners of corporations. Surely any libertarian worth his salt should do so.

But Lessig has understated his own case: the government has a valid interest in seeking to prevent not only the appearance that “money is buying results”, but actual corruption and sweet deals as well. Surely the Constitution was not intended to let wealthy individuals to get a leg up on everyone else by laundering their speech through a company and on a tax-deductible basis.

Further, Lessig fails to noted that the Supreme Court could easily have avoided overturning laws and decades of precedents and public understanding – and could have provided much-needed clarity – by concluding that the statements coming from corporations are NOT entitled to protection as First Amendment “speech”, because corporations are legal entities and not themselves actual individuals capable of “speaking” for purposes of the First Amendment. Such a decision would leave all corporate spokesmen and shareholders bearing, like the rest of us do, personal liability and moral sanction for false or offensive speech (though insurance or indemnification by others might of course be be available).

But via the growth of concentrated power enabled by the state establishment of the corporate form, we appear to be rapidly becoming a nation a county “of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation”.

Banning corporate political speech (and campaign contributions) would dampen the rent-seeking pressures that have fuelled to the growth of the state; such steps would also invigorate public discourse – and build greater national trust – by making it clear WHO is actually doing the talking (or letting the body politic discount whenever speech is anonymous).